PDA

View Full Version : 4.2 Upgrade Complete.



Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 12:58 AM
As you well can tell, the forums are now back in operating condition.

Most of the changes are minor stuff, though obviously you guys note the Articles tab is now gone (until we actually begin using them, anyway...), that the Activity Ticker is now the default mainpage, and that there's now a doublepost prevention in place - any back-to-back posts within 10 minutes or so (for now) will be merged. Values will be changed if we see people beginning to wait 11 minutes or whatever so they can keep doubleposting.

Fire away with the comments, questions, or wishes to marry me and have my babies.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 01:01 AM
any back-to-back posts within 10 minutes or so (for now) will be merged
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THANKS.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 01:48 AM
Changed tab arrangement; made Forums the default tab now (so now, going to forums.nrvnqsr.com should kick you right to the forums once more).

Five_X
June 10th, 2012, 02:47 AM
One really annoying thing, though: can you make profile links default to visitor messages, instead of user activity stuff? I doubt a whole lot of people are going to visit a person's profile for that, and it'll always be secondary to visitor messages.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 02:57 AM
Not so sure about that, but I'll look into it. I've found how to rearrange the tabs, but not how to make that tab the default just yet.

EDIT: Done, but to do it, you made me have to write a plugin AND edit a template. You'd better be goddamn happy.

If not, I'll teach you to be happy. I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Blue
June 10th, 2012, 03:42 AM
wishes to marry me and have my babies.

I couldn't POSSIBLY do so... in public anyway.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 03:48 AM
I couldn't POSSIBLY do so... in public anyway.I'm not that kind of exhibitionist. We can always go to a bedroom.

Counterguardian
June 10th, 2012, 06:22 AM
There's always IVF if you live too far away from each other to make it feasible.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 06:54 AM
there's now a doublepost prevention in place - any back-to-back posts within 10 minutes or so (for now) will be merged. Values will be changed if we see people beginning to wait 11 minutes or whatever so they can keep doubleposting.

Well, there are some instances where double-posting is actually necessary (for example, posting story chapters), albeit not generally within 10 minutes, so you should be careful about that. Also, what would happen if the combined posts were too long to fit into a single post (which would be the one occasion I could see good reason for double-posting in short order, although it's hard to see why that would be the case in the forum)? Also, does the new post get the timestamp of the first one, or the second one? Because sometimes a post edit will get missed due to everyone having already read the post, and if it's important enough then that might be why the person double-posted.

Tobias
June 10th, 2012, 09:44 AM
this new whats new function confuses and infuriates me

Lycodrake
June 10th, 2012, 10:40 AM
I honestly dislike the "My Activity" addition...is there some way to change the settings to only allow friends to see it or something?
The "What's New?" changing the way it did also bugs me...

Kotonoha
June 10th, 2012, 11:16 AM
Changed tab arrangement; made Forums the default tab now (so now, going to forums.nrvnqsr.com should kick you right to the forums once more).
Thanks!

Neir
June 10th, 2012, 11:37 AM
On the same vein as mike, will merged doubleposts still bump the thread/show there's new content? Particularly for RPs when announcements are made.

Tobias
June 10th, 2012, 11:39 AM
It only goes for 10 minutes, so if you go post something new a day later, you wouldn't have to worry about a merge cock blocking your bump.

Kotonoha
June 10th, 2012, 11:42 AM
I want to see how merged doubleposts work

- - - Updated - - -

So I'm doubleposting

I3uster
June 10th, 2012, 01:09 PM
Is this updated thing automatic?

- - - Updated - - -

Just testing.

- - - Updated - - -

This is pretty lulzy

- - - Updated - - -

Does this trigger subscription notifications?

- - - Updated - - -

LOOK AT ME I'M A SPAMMER RAWR

Ruca_Milda
June 10th, 2012, 01:14 PM
or wishes to marry me and have my babies.

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/ab66/Ruca_Mildew/tumblr_m5d0mvhLVr1qdxlm5.gif

not really

Neir
June 10th, 2012, 01:46 PM
T-tonnura-san?

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 03:26 PM
Well, there are some instances where double-posting is actually necessary (for example, posting story chapters), albeit not generally within 10 minutes, so you should be careful about that. Also, what would happen if the combined posts were too long to fit into a single post (which would be the one occasion I could see good reason for double-posting in short order, although it's hard to see why that would be the case in the forum)? Also, does the new post get the timestamp of the first one, or the second one? Because sometimes a post edit will get missed due to everyone having already read the post, and if it's important enough then that might be why the person double-posted.

You can't be that kind of careful with machine-enforced systems. They work on their own.
In general, you can trust the developers to not be idiots, anyways. If they really need to double post, they can wait 10min.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 03:28 PM
You can't be that kind of careful with machine-enforced systems. They work on their own.

Well, yes, which is why I'm not sure about "machine-enforced systems" in general.


In general, you can trust the developers to not be idiots, anyways. If they really need to double post, they can wait 10min.

That's not always true, though, particularly if you're posting large amounts of material (e.g. fic chapters). I don't think it's reasonable to just expect everyone to wait 10 minutes in all circumstances.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 03:46 PM
Well, yes, which is why I'm not sure about "machine-enforced systems" in general.
It's that way or the highway. Manual is not an option.


That's not always true, though, particularly if you're posting large amounts of material (e.g. fic chapters). I don't think it's reasonable to just expect everyone to wait 10 minutes in all circumstances.
No, because in 95% of the circumstances they shouldn't be waiting 10min to double post. The 5% remaining can do so if they need to.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 04:14 PM
It's that way or the highway. Manual is not an option.

Well, it seemed to be working just fine before....


No, because in 95% of the circumstances they shouldn't be waiting 10min to double post. The 5% remaining can do so if they need to.

Ah, yes, the usual "inconvinience everyone else because of a few idiots" approach.

And, it's really not that simple if, for example, you're posting a bunch of fic chapters. I suspect it won't affect DP, though, because he can probably just bypass it if he gets irritated by it....

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 04:32 PM
Well, it seemed to be working just fine before....
Which is to say it wasn't. There's a reason why I was happy it happened.


Ah, yes, the usual "inconvinience everyone else because of a few idiots" approach.
Kind of the opposite: Inconvenience the few that need to doublepost while the rest can just the merge happen. It's better for most.


And, it's really not that simple if, for example, you're posting a bunch of fic chapters. I suspect it won't affect DP, though, because he can probably just bypass it if he gets irritated by it....
Who posts multiple chapters in a row, anyways?

You seem to be opposing on principle with little-to-no valid arguments for said opposition. Given that, I suppose there's no point in further argument. I'm out.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Which is to say it wasn't. There's a reason why I was happy it happened.

I don't recall seeing that much double-posting, and the mods can always deal with it if it's persistant.


Kind of the opposite: Inconvenience the few that need to doublepost while the rest can just let their posts get merged automatically.

What happens if the combined post is too long, though?

That is a serious potential problem, although it is admittedly less of one given the post length limits on the forum.


Who posts multiple chapters in a row, anyways?

I've seen it before.

Ruca_Milda
June 10th, 2012, 04:38 PM
I didn't even know there was a post length limit tbh.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 04:43 PM
Also, what would happen if the combined posts were too long to fit into a single post (which would be the one occasion I could see good reason for double-posting in short order, although it's hard to see why that would be the case in the forum)?Presumably it's able to force-merge them anyway, though admittedly, I don't know.


Also, does the new post get the timestamp of the first one, or the second one? Because sometimes a post edit will get missed due to everyone having already read the post, and if it's important enough then that might be why the person double-posted.Timestamps are updated to the second post (or consecutive) posts.


I honestly dislike the "My Activity" addition...is there some way to change the settings to only allow friends to see it or something?
The "What's New?" changing the way it did also bugs me...Profile Privacy settings in your user settings.


On the same vein as mike, will merged doubleposts still bump the thread/show there's new content? Particularly for RPs when announcements are made.Pretty sure it will, since it is updating the timestamp.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 04:47 PM
Presumably it's able to force-merge them anyway, though admittedly, I don't know.

Hmm, that probably should be tested, before someone gets hit by it....

Does it apply to all posts (including in blogs), or only to forum posts?


Timestamps are updated to the second post (or consecutive) posts.

Ah, OK.

So, it basically allows you to bump via double-posting, without producing multiple posts.

That is actually quite useful, particularly since it will automatically take into account whether another post was made....

NuitTombee
June 10th, 2012, 04:47 PM
The RSS feed icons are a bit illegible with the white on orange look, imo at least.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Hmm, that probably should be tested, before someone gets hit by it....

Does it apply to all posts (including in blogs), or only to forum posts?I don't know. Blogs are technically a separate module from the forum, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't apply.


The RSS feed icons are a bit illegible with the white on orange look, imo at least.Got a better one? I could easily replace the image no problem.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 05:04 PM
Wait, RSS feed icon? Where?

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 05:05 PM
Right in front of your face.

NuitTombee
June 10th, 2012, 05:08 PM
What size limit?

Edit: Also, this might be helpful. http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/free-rss-feed-icons-the-ultimate-list/

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 05:09 PM
I don't know. Blogs are technically a separate module from the forum, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't apply.

Well, IIRC the limit on blogs is lower, so the issue of hitting the post length limit when the posts are combined could plausibly hit people there (although I guess we've already managed to bump the limit up somewhat with our last argument...).

You really should test it, because if it truncates the post it would be really annoying, given how much effort goes into writing a post that long.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 05:14 PM
Well, IIRC the limit on blogs is lower, so the issue of hitting the post length limit when the posts are combined could plausibly hit people there (although I guess we've already managed to bump the limit up somewhat with our last argument...).

You really should test it, because if it truncates the post it would be really annoying, given how much effort goes into writing a post that long.I doubt it'd truncate it. It'd probably just do the old system like it did before - "Your post was too long. Say it in less characters, you dumbass."

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 05:19 PM
I doubt it'd truncate it. It'd probably just do the old system like it did before - "Your post was too long - say it in less characters, you dumbass."

The difference is that, before, you could just get around that by double-posting. Now you can't, which is bad. It's no problem for you, because you just increase the limit, but I can't do that, so I end up not being able to express my opinion properly.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 05:22 PM
The difference is that, before, you could just get around that by double-posting. Now you can't, which is bad. It's no problem for you, because you just increase the limit, but I can't do that, so I end up not being able to express my opinion properly.Again, I'm pretty sure that in that case it would override the limit and merge the two posts after-the-fact.

But you should really still try to say it in as few words as possible. Backing up the post table is one of the longest things in our backup system (nearly a minute and a half is spent on this alone when most other tables are literally done in hundredths of a second) because of the fact I've allowed such gratuitous post limits.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 05:24 PM
Again, I'm pretty sure that in that case it would override the limit and merge the two posts after-the-fact.

Well, that's what I'd hope, but if it's not, then it'd be a real pain in some circumstances.


But you should really still try to say it in as few words as possible. Backing up the post table is one of the longest things in our backup system (nearly a minute and a half is spent on this alone when most other tables are literally done in hundredths of a second) because of the fact I've allowed such gratuitous post limits.

Well, you weren't exactly any better.

And, sorry, but I simply can't do that, even more so when a) I'm angry and b) the "fewer words" would consist of things like "asshole", which would get me banned. It's much easier to avoid being verbose when you're not going to get in trouble for expressing your true opinion....

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Well, you weren't exactly any better.Part of this was quoting your posts in kind, though.


And, sorry, but I simply can't do that, even more so when a) I'm angry and b) the "fewer words" would consist of things like "asshole", which would get me banned. It's much easier to avoid being verbose when you're not going to get in trouble for expressing your true opinion....Then do try to learn how to do it. Getting across what you want in fewer words is superior communication, after all. The guy who can argue what he wants in 100 words versus the guy who needs a thousand could theoretically argue ten times quicker. :p

As for the swearing? That's totally your self control (or lack of it, as the case may be if you wind up doing it). It tends to make you lose arguments, too, since you then look childish.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 05:40 PM
Part of this was quoting your posts in kind, though.

Do quotes count? I thought they didn't....


Then do try to learn how to do it. Getting across what you want in fewer words is superior communication, after all. The guy who can argue what he wants in 100 words versus the guy who needs a thousand could theoretically argue ten times quicker. :p

I'm very poor at it, though.


As for the swearing? That's totally your self control (or lack of it, as the case may be if you wind up doing it). It tends to make you lose arguments, too, since you then look childish.

Not really, it's just easier to be concise when I don't have to pussyfoot around what I really want to say.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 05:50 PM
How did this devolve into DP vs Mike again? Jeez, is every change a personal attack against you, Mike?

And seriously, I can't find the goddamn RSS icon.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 05:56 PM
How did this devolve into DP vs Mike again? Jeez, is every change a personal attack against you, Mike?

I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 05:59 PM
And seriously, I can't find the goddamn RSS icon.Hint: Forum main page.


I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.C'est la vie.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 06:02 PM
C'est la vie.

In other words "I'm not going to listen to you no matter how much sense you might be making, so just shut up", right?

Lianru
June 10th, 2012, 06:18 PM
These ugly orange things, get them away from me D:

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Hint: Forum main page.

Theeeeeeere it is. Shows you how often I visit that page. :V

NuitTombee
June 10th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Maybe this would look better? http://i.imgur.com/kyTeO.png

I didn't know what size to use so I went with a 15x15.

Lianru
June 10th, 2012, 06:38 PM
YES, it would.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 07:50 PM
In other words "I'm not going to listen to you no matter how much sense you might be making, so just shut up", right?Oh no, you're making perfect sense. You're explaining your position quite well and quite reasonably.

It's just that it doesn't matter worth a damn what one person wants. I want a billion dollars, but that doesn't mean I get to have it just because I say I do, even if I went up to the richest people in the world and asked them very nicely, now does it?

You may see it as an attack because it forces you to keep your words shorter, but well, you don't have to download 500+ MB backups of the server in case something goes wrong, now do you?

And yes, that is GZipped - a full, uncompressed dump of the forum is well over a gigabyte.

No, you're not supposed to be "bypassing" the rules when you feel they're nonsensical. If the rule is nonsensical, it wouldn't be there, because I hate idiot rules myself. So the rules are there are there for a reason, and while I don't mind if you don't like it (feel free to think it's a horrible rule all you want, really) that doesn't mean I should change it just to make you happy. This is not a utopia.

So naturally, this makes me an evil overlord who does "tyranny by majority" once again. But hold on a second. Let's look at the reasons WHY I am doing this, before you cry foul yet again because I'm doing something, see no reason to change my position, and you don't like it.

In this case, while there's no sense to you for a limit on post length - and indeed, were this an ideal world, there would be no need for that limit at all - there are practical limitations like space consumed by posts, and considerations for when the backup script runs, because the bigger the posts table, the longer it will eventually take to backup. Before I added in some optimizations a few days ago (before I prepared to do the upgrade), a full forum backup took 422 seconds.

Yes, that would be seven minutes.

And it actually did not save properly. Which is very bad news if for some reason we ever suffer a catastrophic database failure.

It's now down by about 100 seconds, but it still takes over five minutes to complete a full forum dump, but at least now it is completing successfully.

Furthermore, we can't assume everyone who signs up here is benign and a Nasuverse fan. We do get spammers from time to time who manage to slip in through the CAPTCHAs. Imagine if they found out they had no fixed post length limit, for example - you think a wall of text is bad now, imagine when it's 5 million characters. Or worse, that the post length means they can try injection attacks that normally would not work due to the limitation.

There are practical as well as security reasons why limits are set, Mike. It would help you greatly if, instead of focusing on "This inconveniences me!" all the time, you would actually think about how other people could use - or abuse - it, all in the name of "freedom." After all, freedom also means less security, and while I'd like to give our users as much freedom as I can without being Big Brother (though I'll be the Nii-san for whoever needs it!), I'd also like to keep these forums from being hacked, if you don't mind. Thank you.


Maybe this would look better? http://i.imgur.com/kyTeO.png

I didn't know what size to use so I went with a 15x15.The one for the forums are 16x11. Probably not too big of a difference...

Lianru
June 10th, 2012, 07:53 PM
So, Darples, how about changing that RSS image? The orange burns into my eyes.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 08:02 PM
No, DP I understand post length limits, and your reasoning makes sense, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them or to double-post, such as when posting a fanfic. But, you don't care about that, because you can just bypass the rules if they annoy you anyway. To you, the rules are nice and flexible, because if you don't like them, then you just ignore them. To us, they are rigid and inflexible. But, you don't care, because all you care about is you, apparently.

As you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise the limit or break the rules at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.

Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.

I'm not arguing that the post length should not be limited, I'm just arguing that it should be possible to double-post when it is genuinely necessary to bypass it, like it was when I had the argument with you on the blog. That would not help spammers at all, because they would still be limited by the flood controls just as they were previously.

SeiKeo
June 10th, 2012, 08:04 PM
Chillax.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 08:10 PM
So, Darples, how about changing that RSS image? The orange burns into my eyes.Looking into it. Gotta find a way to replace the "default image" - while I could easily overwrite it, that means I'd have to redo it every upgrade, and that's not sensible.


No, DP I understand post length limits, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them.That was on blogs, which do have different limits and are much shorter. Posts have been at 100,000 for awhile.


Of course, as you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise them or break them at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.Actually, I'd love to reduce the limits, and for blogs I probably will, since really blogs aren't meant to have ridiculous walls of text like you and I created - they're meant to be fairly short and concise, and realistically, needing more than a few ten-thousand characters to get your point across means you should probably frigging cut out some words, but with you, I have a bad habit of not doing so. Plus it lets me test if doublepost merging works with them. After all, I don't need to write huge replies - and the only times when I ever even come close to tipping those limits... is when I'm arguing with you.


Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.Nice to know I'm living up to your expectations. Tune in next week when I ride down to my serfs' homes on my horsey Clop-Clop, and practice my rights of droit du seigneur!

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 08:16 PM
That was on blogs, which do have different limits and are much shorter. Posts have been at 100,000 for awhile.

Yes, I know (and I've never yet experienced a situation where I've gone over the post length limit), but if it applies to blogs too, then it is still an issue there.


Actually, I'd love to reduce the limits, and for Blogs I probably will, since really blogs aren't meant to have ridiculous walls of text like you and I created.

Right, so you intend to restrict my ability to complain about the moderation on my blog, just because you don't like what I said and the fact that I talk in a non-DP-approved manner. But, of course, if you need to reply to me, you'll just bump the limit up like you did last time around, because you're a mod and you can.

Where else were we supposed to have that discussion, and resolve the problem? I couldn't do it by PM because the PMs are too damn small too, and the same probably applies to VMs. So, we wouldn't have resolved anything if you'd had it your way, just because I don't talk in the fucking DP-approved non-verbose speak that you seem to be insisting on.


Plus it lets me test if doublepost merging works. After all, I don't need to write huge replies - and the only times when I ever even come close to tipping those limits... is when I'm arguing with you.

Exactly, once again you only care about what you want to do, and not about anyone else. You decree how you think things should be used, and bugger how anyone else might want to use them.


Nice to know I'm living up to your expectations. Tune in next week when I ride down to my serfs' homes, and practice my rights of droit du seigneur!

Ah, yes, you can't actually come up with any reasonable arguments for the position you're taking, so you just resort to stupid jokes....

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 08:27 PM
If you can't express yourself in less than 10k characters, you're failing at communication anyways. For one, it means you lack the ability for synthesis. A trivial example: Taking multiple related or identical points and respond to'em in a single post instead of quoting and answering every. single. fucking. one. (Yeah you need to fix that one DP. Ganbatte!)

Or just skip the quoting altogether. If the posts're back to back, it's not even needed.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 08:27 PM
Yes, I know (and I've never yet experienced a situation where I've gone over the post length limit), but if it applies to blogs too, then it is still an issue there.No, there's not. Blogs are supposed to be short; posts tend to have more content. Therefore, blogs should be smaller than posts; right now they are but not by much.

I don't see any legitimate reasons for having such a high limit for blogs (or for posts, for that matter, but I'm going to keep posts untouched because there are some people who are indeed unwilling or unable to upload attachments/DOCs for some reason or another) so that is likely going to be tuned back down, because I don't count on having ridiculous argument blogs again, and if I do, I'm damn well going to just keep my points more concise. I'm going to break that bad habit.


Right, so you intend to restrict my ability to complain about the moderation on my blog, just because you don't like what I said and the fact that I talk in a non-DP-approved manner. But, of course, if you need to reply to me, you'll just bump the limit up like you did last time around, because you're a mod and you can.No, I fully intend that once I lower the limits I'm keeping them stuck to where they are. If that means you have to post four posts in a row back-to-back, then that's just what you're going to have to do. The argument only gets longer the more I try to explain things, so by keeping myself to one post, it'll make the argument less annoying for everyone else who has to be punished by it.


Where else were we supposed to have that discussion, and resolve the problem? I couldn't do it by PM because the PMs are too damn small too, and the same probably applies to VMs. So, we wouldn't have resolved anything if you'd had it your way, just because I don't talk in the fucking DP-approved non-verbose speak that you seem to be insisting on.Not that there was much to resolve. What we spent a ridiculous amount of time doing was explaining why we did what we did, and what it boiled down to was essentially "In the future, we'll be a bit more in touch with you on warnings, but in kind, help us out by doing this and this." Agreement made; problem settled.


Exactly, once again you only care about what you want to do, and not about anyone else. You decree how you think things should be used, and bugger how anyone else might want to use them.It's more like that "upping the things is being unfair because I can change that and nobody else can." Which is why from now on I'm going to be sticking to the limits, whatever they're set to. Post limit isn't changing, but blogs will be (probably to about 25,000) have been reduced to 25,000, and from there it's sticking, because 99% of blog replies or commentaries can be written in that much - much like probably 99% of posts can be written in 100,000.


Ah, yes, you can't actually come up with any reasonable arguments for the position you're taking, so you just resort to stupid jokes....I came up with reasons. You chose to ignore them. As I said, potential attack vulnerability, site backup considerations, and the space the backups take. You don't notice or care about any of these things, but those are factors you have to take in when you run a site, so sorry if a little bit of security and making sure that we don't lose all our posts again infringes on your rights. I think more people would care that I could restore the forum than about you having the ability to write a million-character post.
100%
Also, the RSS Icon is now changed. A few template modifications should mean it'll stick even through upgrades.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 08:44 PM
No, there's not. Blogs are supposed to be short; posts tend to have more content. Therefore, blogs should be smaller than posts; right now they are but not by much.

In general, yes, but that's not always the case.


I don't see any legitimate reasons for having such a high limit for blogs (or for posts, for that matter, but I'm going to keep posts untouched because there are some people who are indeed unwilling or unable to upload attachments/DOCs for some reason or another) so that is likely going to be tuned back down, because I don't count on having ridiculous argument blogs again, and if I do, I'm damn well going to just keep my points more concise. I'm going to break that bad habit.

Fics should not be uploaded in attachments, if that's what you're implying.


No, I fully intend that once I lower the limits I'm keeping them stuck to where they are. If that means you have to post four posts in a row back-to-back, then that's just what you're going to have to do. The argument only gets longer the more I try to explain things, so by keeping myself to one post, it'll make the argument less annoying for everyone else who has to be punished by it.

Except that I can't make four posts in a row (at least if the system applies to blogs), because your new system won't allow it. Which was the entire point I was trying to make in the first damn place....

I mean, seriously, did you actually read a single word of what I said? Because you seem to be under the distinct impression that I'm arguing against post length limits when I'm not. Hell, you've taken so little notice of me that you even suggested the very thing I complained about not being able to do as a solution to the issue with the limit you've placed on blog post lengths....


Not that there was much to resolve. What we spent a ridiculous amount of time doing was explaining why we did what we did, and what it boiled down to was essentially "In the future, we'll be a bit more in touch with you on warnings, but in kind, help us out by doing this and this." Agreement made; problem settled.

Well, yes, sure, but I needed to go through all that argument to get there.


It's more like that "upping the things is being unfair because I can change that and nobody else can." Which is why from now on I'm going to be sticking to the limits, whatever they're set to. Post limit isn't changing, but blogs will be (probably to about 25,000) have been reduced to 25,000, and from there it's sticking, because 99% of blog replies or commentaries can be written in that much - much like probably 99% of posts can be written in 100,000.

Well, I've never seen an issue with posts, but I'm not convinced about the blogs. But, whatever.


I came up with reasons. You chose to ignore them. As I said, potential attack vulnerability, site backup considerations, and the space the backups take. You don't notice or care about any of these things, but those are factors you have to take in when you run a site, so sorry if a little bit of security and making sure that we don't lose all our posts again infringes on your rights. I think more people would care that I could restore the forum than about you having the ability to write a million-character post.

Those are all reasons to have a post limit, yes, and I fully accept them.

However, my original point was not that post length limits are a bad thing, it's that, occasionally, there is a need to bypass them, and the ability to double-post allows for that. If the double-post protection doesn't allow for merging posts beyond the post length limit, then it will simply not be possible for someone to do that under any circumstances. And that, to me, is a bad thing, because inflexible rules like that just hinder people.

Tobias
June 10th, 2012, 08:46 PM
Any circumstances? Couldn't they just wait 10 minutes or an hour or whatever it is?

Lianru
June 10th, 2012, 08:50 PM
They're cut off but no longer painful! <3

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 08:50 PM
Any circumstances? Couldn't they just wait 10 minutes or an hour or whatever it is?

If you're replying to someone else in a discussion? Not really....

And, it's pretty damn inconvinient, too.

Counterguardian
June 10th, 2012, 08:54 PM
No, DP I understand post length limits, and your reasoning makes sense, but given that you yourself extended them twice just to argue with me, it's pretty clear that they are not always correct. Similarly, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to go over them or to double-post, such as when posting a fanfic. But, you don't care about that, because you can just bypass the rules if they annoy you anyway. To you, the rules are nice and flexible, because if you don't like them, then you just ignore them. To us, they are rigid and inflexible. But, you don't care, because all you care about is you, apparently.

As you said, you don't actually care how individuals feel, no matter how much sense they might be making, so to expect you to actually be reasonable about things would just he ludicrous. Further, it's really fucking easy for you to say that when if you dislike them, you'll just raise the limit or break the rules at will. You claim you don't listen to what individuals want, but if you yourself wanted it it would be changed in an instant. As usual, though, you take the well-worn approach of "well, it's not my problem, so fuck you". If if inconviniences me, that's tough shit. If it inconviniences you, then you just change it.

Fucking typical bullshit authoritarianism. Not that I expected anything better from you by now.

I'm not arguing that the post length should not be limited, I'm just arguing that it should be possible to double-post when it is genuinely necessary to bypass it, like it was when I had the argument with you on the blog. That would not help spammers at all, because they would still be limited by the flood controls just as they were previously.

Actually Mike, if you responded like this all the time and didn't use that many quotes, you might find the word limit a little more palatable.

Plus, it would help your stances as it would then look like you're actually arguing against concepts and premises in the other person's posts, as opposed to coming off as overly pedantic. Might want to sub out the cursing for words like "absolutely despicable" though.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:01 PM
Actually Mike, if you responded like this all the time and didn't use that many quotes, you might find the word limit a little more palatable.

Plus, it would help your stances as it would then look like you're actually arguing against concepts and premises in the other person's posts, as opposed to coming off as overly pedantic. Might want to sub out the cursing for words like "absolutely despicable" though.

Quotes are useful, though, because it allows me to respond to points rather than to the post as a whole. Sometimes what you're saying is valid, but for a longer post it doesn't work at all, and nor does it work when I'm responding to multiple posts.

SeiKeo
June 10th, 2012, 09:02 PM
Quotes are useful, though, because it allows me to respond to points rather than to the post as a whole. Sometimes what you're saying is valid, but for a longer post it doesn't work at all, and nor does it work when I'm responding to multiple posts.

This is the problem.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 09:03 PM
In general, yes, but that's not always the case.And sometimes, less is more.


Fics should not be uploaded in attachments, if that's what you're implying.No reason they can't be.


Except that I can't make four posts in a row (at least if the system applies to blogs), because your new system won't allow it. Which was the entire point I was trying to make in the first damn place....

I mean, seriously, did you actually read a single word of what I said? Because you seem to be under the distinct impression that I'm arguing against post length limits when I'm not. Hell, you've taken so little notice of me that you even suggested the very thing I complained about not being able to do as a solution to the issue with the limit you've placed on blog post lengths....Sure you can. Just wait a little bit. Perhaps use the time to trim it down some, too.

Either way, I need to stop the walls. Upping limits isn't going to do that - only making it become shorter is. Like it or not, this is one way to do it. Another way would be counting on you to get your point across quicker, which this assists in.

Again, sometimes less is more. Efficiency, not verbosity.


Well, yes, sure, but I needed to go through all that argument to get there.Which isn't going to happen again; ergo, the shorter limits. If you want to put up four posts, fine, but then expect me to reply using only one.


Well, I've never seen an issue with posts, but I'm not convinced about the blogs. But, whatever.The only time blogs turned into an issue was when you and I argued. Otherwise there was never a reason to raise it even above 10,000. 25,000 is a decent medium without making it inflate as quickly as the posts table has.


Those are all reasons to have a post limit, yes, and I fully accept them.

However, my original point was not that post length limits are a bad thing, it's that, occasionally, there is a need to bypass them, and the ability to double-post allows for that. If the double-post protection doesn't allow for merging posts beyond the post length limit, then it will simply not be possible for someone to do that under any circumstances. And that, to me, is a bad thing, because inflexible rules like that just hinder people....Or just wait ten damn minutes. Is it going to bug you that much to go post in a few other threads, if for some reason you absolutely, positively, somehow cannot say what you need to say in a single post?


They're cut off but no longer painful! <3No they're not.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:13 PM
And sometimes, less is more.

For you, perhaps. But, of course, you're in charge, so as far as you're concerned your opinion is the only one that matters....


No reason they can't be.

Because attachments are a pain in the ass to read. For one thing, half the people on this board seem to automatically assume that everyone has MS Word.


Sure you can. Just wait a little bit. Perhaps use the time to trim it down some, too.

No, you can't, because the person replying will see half a post to reply to.


Either way, I need to stop the walls. Upping limits isn't going to do that - only making it become shorter is. Like it or not, this is one way to do it. Another way would be counting on you to get your point across quicker, which this assists in.

Why do you "need to stop the walls"?

Sure, every post being 100,000 words would be a bad thing, but that's not going to happen. The only real argument for a post length limit is the possibility of spammers. Other than that, if the limit is too short for large numbers of people to do what they wish to do, then you will eventually be forced to raise it anyway, and if it's not then it won't matter. There is no reason to limit the post length or blog comment length just to get rid of one or two long posts. It makes no significant difference to the total size of the post table.


Again, sometimes less is more. Efficiency, not verbosity.

And sometimes it is not.


Which isn't going to happen again; ergo, the shorter limits. If you want to put up four posts, fine, but then expect me to reply using only one.

That's fine, as long as I can do that. But, I can't, if your system works as I fear it will.


The only time blogs turned into an issue was when you and I argued. Otherwise there was never a reason to raise it even above 10,000. 25,000 is a decent medium without making it inflate as quickly as the posts table has.

Well, I agree that you usually won't need long comments in a blog but, then, if no-one ever goes up to the post length limit, then it doesn't matter anyway.


...Or just wait ten damn minutes. Is it going to bug you that much to go post in a few other threads, if for some reason you absolutely, positively, somehow cannot say what you need to say in a single post?

Yes, because you will respond to half a post, which might change how you read it entirely.

SeiKeo
June 10th, 2012, 09:15 PM
Because attachments are a pain in the ass to read. For one thing, half the people on this board seem to automatically assume that everyone has MS Word.

You have no program capable of reading .doc files?

Cruor
June 10th, 2012, 09:15 PM
Any circumstances? Couldn't they just wait 10 minutes or an hour or whatever it is?

Well, that's kinda the thing, the only time you make a post that huge is if you are in an argument and the other guy is reloading the page every five seconds waiting for your reply and then this post limit thing also screws him up.

But yeah, again, the reason I keep making multiple posts is exactly because of this reason. Because there are crazies who reload the page every five seconds for a new post here and will not notice any changes to your post unless you make another one. And then they reply to the old one before the second post and/or ensuing edits and then some people read the quote from the reply. Which fucks everything up. Otherwise, I'm kinda okay with this.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 09:15 PM
I don't think fics as attachments would work. If it's txt, you lose all formatting plus endline weirdness. If it's doc, you run into import issues. If it's HTML, some browsers try to download them instead of displaying directly. Smartphones are good for reading while in the commute but don't deal with attachments. Blah blah.
Plus it's more of a hassle to both post and edit. Some of our writers are really, really, really tech-unsavvy. :neco_arc:


Well, that's kinda the thing, the only time you make a post that huge is if you are in an argument and the other guy is reloading the page every five seconds waiting for your reply and then this post limit thing also screws him up.

But yeah, again, the reason I keep making multiple posts is exactly because of this reason. Because their are crazies who reload the page every five seconds for a new post here and will not notice any changes to your post unless you make another one. And then they reply tot he old one and then other people read the quote. Which fucks everything up. Otherwise, I'm kinda okay with this.
You shouldn't encourage that behavior. Plus, if you find your edit ignored, just cut it and repaste it into a new post. :V

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:16 PM
You have no program capable of reading .doc files?

.doc files are fine, .docx files are not.

But, regardless, people browse this site from all sorts of places, including phones. Assuming that everyone can read attachments of any kind is just wishful thinking.

Cruor
June 10th, 2012, 09:29 PM
You shouldn't encourage that behavior. Plus, if you find your edit ignored, just cut it and repaste it into a new post. :V
Nah, here's the thing, I'm the type that makes hundreds of edits to a post as my initial one normally makes little sense. And then immediately someone replies to it 10 seconds after I posted (srsly, some people in GD do this when its a big argument I am not making that part up literally a page a minute). Also, how can I repaste it when it gets added to my next post? Also, again, this is gonna really mess up arguments as then no one can really reply to later posts for 10 minutes.

But yeah, I started to do it after I saw someone make a post on the post number ending in 8/9/0 area back when there were only 10 posts per page and someone quotes a small line that was pretty sarcastic and then they changed to to say something more literal and then one guy replied to the sarcastic on the next page and nobody bothered going back to the page before and everyone literally copy and pasted the quote and made their own reply without actually looking at the post. It was hilarious. So yeah, while this should work in theory it doesn't work on some parts of BL like during the huge argument moments that often go on when everyone is talking as if they are on fire or some shit.

In other words 10 minute wait too long for the big arguments lolololol.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 09:32 PM
Fair enough. That's how forums live, I guess.

Or you could try to make your point clear before posting and leave the edits for minor cosmetic changes, addenda and the like. Don't use the edit as preview. :P

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 09:32 PM
For you, perhaps. But, of course, you're in charge, so as far as you're concerned your opinion is the only one that matters....Done for the good of the board. None of the rest of the board felt even a 10,000 character limit was "too tight" for blogs, or if they did, they did a very poor job of communicating that to me.

You're the only one who seems to really fight the text limits, at this point.


Because attachments are a pain in the ass to read. For one thing, half the people on this board seem to automatically assume that everyone has MS Word.OpenOffice. Heard of it? It works just fine. If you don't like that, there's also LibreOffice. Both are 100% free.


No, you can't, because the person replying will see half a post to reply to.If they're writing a longer post and it must be split for some reason, they could always add on a note or something.


Why do you "need to stop the walls"?

Sure, every post being 100,000 words would be a bad thing, but that's not going to happen. The only real argument for a post length limit is the possibility of spammers. Other than that, if the limit is too short for large numbers of people to do what they wish to do, then you will eventually be forced to raise it anyway, and if it's not then it won't matter. There is no reason to limit the post length or blog comment length just to get rid of one or two long posts. It makes no significant difference to the total size of the post table.Because it's fucking annoying to everyone else to see them.

Also, every character typed, in every post, takes a byte of space (and potentially more if it's kanji or whatever). The more you allow in a post, the quicker (and more exponential, in theory) the post table grows. While it's true that most blogs will never hit that limit, the way that vBulletin stores posts (in an SQL database) means that bigger posts are, simply put, less efficiently-stored than smaller ones.

Furthermore, as I said, it decreases the incidence of walls. The idea is to say what you need to say using less words, not more. Even in an argument, it should be your general views on the situation, and then, if asked or requested for clarification, should you go into detail. As they say, "keep it simple, stupid."


And sometimes it is not.I'm sure you could reduce the size of your arguments if you actually tried. And if you don't care to try, well that's fine too, but you're going to have to wait a bit as a result, during which time you should think of how you can tighten up your argument so that it takes less words, not more, to express the same idea.


That's fine, as long as I can do that. But, I can't, if your system works as I fear it will.Doublepost prevention works by checking if a person made a post, and then another one afterward. If there's an intervening post inbetween, the limit is waived (as it's not a doublepost). If not, it checks how long it's been; if it's 10 minutes or less, it attempts to merge them if it can. If it's more than ten minutes, it allows it as a separate post.

If it can't merge them (I don't know if it can override the per-post limit) then presumably it will spit an error to this effect, or it may simply allow it anyway.


Well, I agree that you usually won't need long comments in a blog but, then, if no-one ever goes up to the post length limit, then it doesn't matter anyway.Because some people will just ramble on and on and on, and the more room you give them, the more they will ramble.

This is basically an automated way to tell them to STFU.


Yes, because you will respond to half a post, which might change how you read it entirely....Then make it shorter or else put in a "To be continued" or something.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Done for the good of the board. None of the rest of the board felt even a 10,000 character limit was "too tight" for blogs, or if they did, they did a very poor job of communicating that to me.

You're the only one who seems to really fight the text limits, at this point.

Again, the point is that you do not need that limit.


OpenOffice. Heard of it? It works just fine. If you don't like that, there's also LibreOffice.

It can't read docx files, which is what many people use. And, as I pointed out, good luck getting a phone that runs it....


If they're writing a longer post and it must be split for some reason, they could always add on a note or something.

Perhaps, but you're making it painfully awkward for people to just post normally, just because it's convinient for you to do so.


Because it's fucking annoying to everyone else to see them.

How is it?

For one thing, they do not need to read them.


Also, every character typed, in every post, takes a byte of space. The more you allow in a post, the quicker (and more exponential, in theory) the post table grows. While it's true that most blogs will never hit that limit, the way that vBulletin stores posts (in an SQL database) means that bigger posts are, simply put, less efficiently-stored than smaller ones.

Well, of course but, like I said, if the post limit is anything like reasonable, it'll rarely or never get hit anyway, so it won't matter.


Furthermore, as I said, it decreases the incidence of walls. The idea is to say what you need to say using less words, not more. Even in an argument, it should be your general views on the situation, and then, if asked or requested for clarification, should you go into detail. As they say, "keep it simple, stupid."

That's a stupid way of doing it. It just wastes effort on everyone's part to leave out important details for the sake of brevity.


I'm sure you could reduce the size of your arguments if you actually tried. And if you don't care to try, well that's fine too, but you're going to have to wait a bit as a result.

Exactly.

In other words "fuck you, if you won't do things my way, then you'll have to suffer".


Doublepost prevention works by checking if a person made a post, and then another one afterward. If there's an intervening post inbetween, the limit is waived. If not, it checks how long it's been; if it's 10 minutes or less, it attempts to merge them if it can. If it's more than ten minutes, it allows it as a separate post.

Yes, but what happens if it can't merge it, due to the post length?


Because some people will just ramble on and on and on, and the more room you give them, the more they will ramble.

This is basically an automated way to tell them STFU.

In other words, "I don't like how you talk, so fuck you". Yeah, that's about par for the course from you....


...Then make it shorter or else put in a "To be continued" or something.

That's just a dumb way of arguing. Of course, you couldn't care less, because you expect everyone to fall into fucking line and argue the DP-approved manner.

Are you going to be handing out fucking "DP-approved arguer" certificates next or something?

Cruor
June 10th, 2012, 09:41 PM
yeah, and what if 6 posts that you could reply to by the time you finished your argument/wall-of-text-of-your-explanation-of-whatever-scene while you were making your post? And then you start to write up a reply to them (I specifically remember one time we were arguing and we somehow got so fast that we did a page in like 40 seconds so we stopped arguing just to joke about how everytime we reloaded there were two or three more posts and whatnot before going back to arguing) and you write what you want pretty fast and end up higher in the queue of posts and end up before everyone else when they spam you with replies of the previous argument and ignore everything in your new post which was put at the bottom of the old one they already replied to?

(saying such a specific event because I actually seen it happen here and it has also happened to me here)

SeiKeo
June 10th, 2012, 09:41 PM
Are you going to be handing out fucking "DP-approved arguer" certificates next or something?

I want one.

Lianru
June 10th, 2012, 09:42 PM
No they're not.
You changed it, no fair.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:43 PM
yeah, and what if 6 posts that you could reply to by the time you finished your argument/wall-of-text-of-your-explanation-of-whatever-scene while you were making your post? And then you start to write up a reply to them (I specifically remember one time we were arguing and we somehow got so fast that we did a page in like 40 seconds so we stopped arguing just to joke about how everytime we reloaded there were two or three more posts and whatnot before going back to arguing) and you write what you want pretty fast and end up higher in the queue of posts and end up before everyone else when they spam you with replies of the previous argument and ignore everything in your new post which was put at the bottom of the old one they already replied to?

(saying such a specific event because I actually seen it happen and it has also happened to me)

Well, actually, with the new system, it would work perfectly. You make your double-post, and it either gets merged into the old post or posted seperately depending on whether or not anyone posted before you.

Cruor
June 10th, 2012, 09:46 PM
Yeah, but since you had made your second reply before everyone finished reading and replying to your jumbo wall of text you did and made replies to the parts that were relevant to their interest and made their post you had already finished writing up a reply to whatever small replies happened during the span of writing the post. In this case all of that post would be put into the old one which they already read and had replied to and were flooding the page replies so there's no way they'll check your post again to read whatever addition was done to it.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 09:46 PM
Rejoice, Cruor, for now you shall double-post with impunity!

Also: GOD split that paragraph, I can't fucking read it.

Oh, and that kind of fast-paced argument needs to die, anyways.
Or maybe not, but shorter also means faster. Yayifications!

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Yeah, but since you had made your second reply before everyone finished reading and replying to your jumbo wall of text you did and made replies to the parts that were relevant to their interest and made their post you had already finished writing up a reply to whatever small replies happened during the span of writing the post. In this case all of that post would be put into the old one which they already read and had replied to and were flooding the page replies so there's no way they'll check your post again to read whatever addition was done to it.

Erm, no, because if someone posted before you, then the second post will be posted just like it is now. If they didn't, then your post will be added to and will bump the thread, with the new timestamp. It's no more likely to get ignored than your double-post is.

TypeWannabe
June 10th, 2012, 09:54 PM
Hey cool, this thing just eliminated the need for edits (prior to 10 minutes).

Cruor
June 10th, 2012, 09:55 PM
Nah, here's the situation I'm recounting (except under new rules):

you make some paragraph of an argument (prolly as a reply)

People copy and paste every other sentence saying how its wrong and how you should feel bad for ever writing/thinking such thing.

You reply to the two or three small posts that happened before you finished your previous post.

That gets added to the previous post.

Previous gets flooded by like two or three replies which you then direct your attention to.

Rinse and repeat with someone else's post.

Contents of what would have been the double post are ignored except the guys that are late to the pool.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 09:58 PM
Again, the point is that you do not need that limit.And my point is, yes we do. I've explained the practical reasons for them; you just don't give a rat's ass and see any limit at all as stifling.

Sorry, databases don't work that way, and I'm not letting any spammers have a field day because they could inject a megabyte of malicious Javascript into a post because one person thought all limits of all kinds were bad.


It can't read docx files, which is what many people use. And, as I pointed out, good luck getting a phone that runs it....Blame Microsoft for that. They don't want DOCX to be an open standard.

That said, the readers now usually have a fair degree of being able to READ the format. Writing them... not so good.


Perhaps, but you're making it painfully awkward for people to just post normally, just because it's convinient for you to do so.Again, I don't see any other person complaining over the limit except you. And if there's a "silent minority" out there, god knows I tell them enough times in my posts that I want their opinions, so therefore only two conclusions can be made:


The people here are generally fine with what limits (which are already pretty generous) are set, or
There is no "silent minority."


How is it?

For one thing, they do not need to read them.People still don't like to even see them going on. Especially since they know what it'll be about.


Well, of course but, like I said, if the post limit is anything like reasonable, it'll rarely or never get hit anyway, so it won't matter.And I can't think of very many cases where either of those limits will be hit. The only times they'll come close is when you're arguing a point and can't keep it fairly concise.

25,000 characters is approximately 2500-5000 words, give or take. If you can't get some points across in that, you probably are being too verbose.


That's a stupid way of doing it. It just wastes effort on everyone's part to leave out important details for the sake of brevity.Fine, then just get to the point rather than beating around the bush. That's another way.


Exactly.

In other words "fuck you, if you won't do things my way, then you'll have to suffer".The world doesn't revolve around you, unfortunately.

I truly apologize for your torturous, barbaric, utterly cruel suffering in advance. I will be sure to have Hello Nurse come in with plenty of morphine and neosporin.


Yes, but what happens if it can't merge it, due to the post length?Presumably it tells you to chill out for a few minutes. You could also always edit the original post, too.


In other words, "I don't like how you talk, so fuck you". Yeah, that's about par for the course from you....More like "Keep it simple, stupid." I don't want to spend 2500 words reading what can be done in 500.


That's just a dumb way of arguing. Of course, you couldn't care less, because you expect everyone to fall into fucking line and argue the DP-approved manner.Actually, I could care less, but well, that's what happens when you use that phrase incorrectly.


Are you going to be handing out fucking "DP-approved arguer" certificates next or something?Signed and autographed by Darples himself. With a smiley face.


You changed it, no fair.Achievement Unlocked: Dream Crusher (30G)

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 10:03 PM
You ain't improving in the "stop quoting everything and respond to each line" dept, Darples. :V

Oh, and as much as people could read docx, there're plenty other more valid reasons to why attachments suck and shouldn't be used.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 10:04 PM
Admittedly, no. But I'm keeping my responses fairly succinct at least.

Blue
June 10th, 2012, 10:06 PM
I'm amazed you've kept going for as long as you have. Maybe you have some sort of addiction to quote posting.

RadiantBeam
June 10th, 2012, 10:08 PM
So does this mean I can wave to all of my stalkers as I explore the board during the day?

Because that would be kind of awesome.

Mike1984
June 10th, 2012, 10:09 PM
And my point is, yes we do. I've explained the practical reasons for them; you just don't give a rat's ass and see any limit at all as stifling.

Sorry, databases don't work that way, and I'm not letting any spammers have a field day because they could inject a megabyte of malicious Javascript into a post because one person thought all limits of all kinds were bad.

When did I ever claim that you should not have a limit? I fully understand the technical limitations, and that they force you to have a limit of some kind.

All I've said is that it should be sufficiently high that no normal poster is going to hit it except in exceptional circumstances or, failing that, it should be possible for someone to easily and quickly bypass it, for example by double-posting. The mods exist to ensure that people only do so when it's necessary and, unlike an automated system, they are flexible.


Blame Microsoft for that. They don't want DOCX to be an open standard.

That said, the readers now usually have a fair degree of being able to READ the format. Writing them... not so good.

Well, yes, but the point is that it is a pain in the ass to get hold of something which will read them. Having people post fanfics in that format is just plain annoying.


Again, I don't see any other person complaining over the limit except you. And if there's a "silent minority" out there, god knows I tell them enough times in my posts that I want their opinions, so therefore only two conclusions can be made:


The people here are generally fine with what limits (which are already pretty generous) are set, or
There is no "silent minority."


Ah, yes, the usual "Tyranny by Majority" crap once more. Just because 95% of the forum is fine with your arbitrary limits and restrictions, the other 5% can get stuffed.


People still don't like to even see them going on. Especially since they know what it'll be about.

Well, then, they shouldn't fucking read them.


And I can't think of very many cases where either of those limits will be hit. The only times they'll come close is when you're arguing a point and can't keep it fairly concise.

There aren't many, no, which only makes them even less justified.


25,000 characters is approximately 2500-5000 words, give or take. If you can't get some points across in that, you probably are being too verbose.

Rubbish. It means I'm responding to a lot of different points. Sometimes that happens.


Fine, then just get to the point rather than beating around the bush. That's another way.

And then I get banned for expressing my opinion....


The world doesn't revolve around you, unfortunately.

But, apparently it does revolve around you, since you apparently only even listen to your own damn voice and no-one fucking else.


I truly apologize for your torturous, barbaric, utterly cruel suffering in advance. I will be sure to have Hello Nurse come in with plenty of morphine and neosporin.

In other words "ha ha, I'm the admin, fuck you". Yeah, that's about right....


Presumably it tells you to chill out for a few minutes. You could also always edit the original post, too.

No, it tells me to get even madder at the retarded system and the admin who implemented it for no good reason....


More like "Keep it simple, stupid." I don't want to spend 2500 words reading what can be done in 500.

Yeah, well, despite what you might think, I ain't fucking stupid.


Actually, I could care less, but well, that's what happens when you use that phrase incorrectly.

What, so you care lots, then? Think about it. "Could care less" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as a statement. It implies that you actually do care.

I guess "could care less" could be an Americanism, but I'm not American, so stop assuming I use the exact same non-sensical statements as you do.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 10:10 PM
I'm amazed you've kept going for as long as you have. Maybe you have some sort of addiction to quote posting.
We might need to stage an intervention.

So does this mean I can wave to all of my stalkers as I explore the board during the day?

Because that would be kind of awesome.
Wut

SeiKeo
June 10th, 2012, 10:11 PM
this argument

http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyboom.gif

RadiantBeam
June 10th, 2012, 10:11 PM
Wut

Well, you know. Anyone who stalks me now can follow my activity. And stuff.

Blue
June 10th, 2012, 10:12 PM
We might need to stage an intervention.

I'll get the chips and dip!

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 11:20 PM
When did I ever claim that you should not have a limit? I fully understand the technical limitations, and that they force you to have a limit of some kind.

All I've said is that it should be sufficiently high that no normal poster is going to hit it except in exceptional circumstances or, failing that, it should be possible for someone to easily and quickly bypass it, for example by double-posting. The mods exist to ensure that people only do so when it's necessary and, unlike an automated system, they are flexible.And 25,000 chars for a blogpost and 100,000 for a forum post covers virtually everything except for exceptional circumstances, so why are you still arguing this?

100,000 chars is anywhere from 10,000-20,000 words. Most authors don't write chapters that long, so it should cover even fanfics.

Again, what good reasons would there be for raising it more, other than "I can't get my point across?" If you never hit the limit at all, why do you even care that there is a limit? I could see if you keep smacking the limit as that would be annoying, but you almost never do, so really, why the hell are you complaining about this?


Well, yes, but the point is that it is a pain in the ass to get hold of something which will read them. Having people post fanfics in that format is just plain annoying.That's the author's freedom to post it that way if they wish to do so. Likewise, you have the freedom to either get a program that can read it, ask them nicely to transcribe it, or wash your hands of it.


Ah, yes, the usual "Tyranny by Majority" crap once more. Just because 95% of the forum is fine with your arbitrary limits and restrictions, the other 5% can get stuffed.Leave if you don't like it. I'm tired of you crying just because I won't change limits to what satisfies you, since you are the only one who complains about shit like this.

I'm especially tired of being called a tyrant. I told you to stop this and I meant it. If you want me to be a tyrant, let me know, and then I'll start treating you way worse than I actually do. After all, a tyrant doesn't allow for dissent - at all.


Well, then, they shouldn't fucking read them.They kind of can't help it if you keep throwing it into their faces every time some forum policy happens that you don't like, because you will protest and complain for pages on end. Like you've been doing.


There aren't many, no, which only makes them even less justified.Right, so if anything, they should be shrunk. But I like to leave some wiggle room. I think what's set is reasonable for most purposes, and if not, it's not like you're PREVENTED from posting things. Delayed, maybe, but not prevented.


And then I get banned for expressing my opinion....Not if you explain your view civilly. Calling people tyrants and putting words/thoughts into my mouth ain't civil. After all, I could say your posts are diarrhea flowing from your fingertips, but I don't, now do I?


But, apparently it does revolve around you, since you apparently only even listen to your own damn voice and no-one fucking else.Name other people who care about the post limit as much as you do. Hell, get them to post in here.

If you're that frustrated about it, start a damn poll on it, so that it becomes public awareness.

There's ways to do shit, Mike, and while we do listen to serious complaints, it takes more than one person to lodge as a merit of concern. It takes a crowd. You're the only one who keeps arguing this, so unless that changes there is no point to changing the limits. You're one poster out of about 1000 active, and you don't run this forum, so sorry if I don't cater to your every whim.


In other words "ha ha, I'm the admin, fuck you". Yeah, that's about right....More like "One person complaining about an already high limit isn't really worth anything." If a group of people complain, sure. One? Not without very good cause, and "I can't get my whole point across in 10,000 words!" isn't good enough cause. Trim down your frigging arguments. The mods are here to make things run smoothly, not kiss your ass.


No, it tells me to get even madder at the retarded system and the admin who implemented it for no good reason....Go complain to vBulletin Solutions, then. They're the ones who integrated it into the core.


Yeah, well, despite what you might think, I ain't fucking stupid.It's a phrase, not an insinuation. The idea is to not waste time, effort, and energy saying more than you need to.


What, so you care lots, then? Think about it. "Could care less" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as a statement. It implies that you actually do care.

I guess "could care less" could be an Americanism, but I'm not American, so stop assuming I use the exact same non-sensical statements as you do.That's because you're correct: I do care about the situation if enough people think it's a problem. One person is not enough.

Put it this way, if I didn't care, I wouldn't have raised it at all from the defaults over a year ago.


this argument

http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyboom.gifhttp://darkpulse.project2612.org/fuckle.gif

Counterguardian
June 10th, 2012, 11:29 PM
Unrelated, can we cut down the quote limit on messages to keep threads nice and succinct?

I was thinking a maximum of 3 quotes should mean that we can respond to multiple posts, but I'm thinking that 5 should cover virtually all cases.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 11:30 PM
The longest chapter I've ever seen was about 90k (and holy shit that's a slog to read), so 100k is enough for pretty much everyone.

That said, Darples, you could just not respond. It's not like you need to have the last word, right?


Unrelated, can we cut down the quote limit on messages to keep threads nice and succinct?

I was thinking a maximum of 3 quotes should mean that we can respond to multiple posts, but I'm thinking that 5 should cover virtually all cases.
You know, this is interesting, but I don't think it's possible without writing a mod. The only ones who quote more than 5 times are those who're arguing (I admit I've fallen for this too) and stopping that would be all kinds of great.

Dark Pulse
June 10th, 2012, 11:43 PM
That said, Darples, you could just not respond. It's not like you need to have the last word, right?Indeed, which is why eventually I do stop replying, usually when I feel that Mike has gone from legitimate concerns to just plain whining, which is about the point the current one is at. Once the T-word comes out, that's when it's become that.


You know, this is interesting, but I don't think it's possible without writing a mod. The only ones who quote more than 5 times are those who're arguing (I admit I've fallen for this too) and stopping that would be all kinds of great.I took a look in the Admin CP, and indeed, it seems there's no way to limit that without a mod. There is a way to limit what are called "Multi-Quotes" which quote multiple posts, but even that says there's nothing stopping the user from manually typing in a quote field.

Kyte
June 10th, 2012, 11:57 PM
If I knew how vBullettin worked I'd totally write you the mod, Joomla gave me the habit of coding new stuff up whenever I needed something.

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 12:40 AM
If I knew how vBullettin worked I'd totally write you the mod, Joomla gave me the habit of coding new stuff up whenever I needed something.Could always read these: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=242

They're public-access.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 01:21 AM
OH GOD A SUPPORT FORUM
:P

...wait, I have to buy the goddamn thing just to test things out?

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 01:25 AM
Well, you could write a plugin without it, but obviously you can't test it without either some kind of "testing bed" or something.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 01:50 AM
Dangerous stuff, that. I ain't gonna trust anyone, even myself, to code the thing right on the first go.

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 02:29 AM
Well, there's ways around that, but of course, the limit of polite discussion dictates that we not go much further than that.

NuitTombee
June 11th, 2012, 06:44 AM
Would a smaller 11x11 image correct the alignment issue. http://i.imgur.com/AA0W6.png

Or is this happening to just me?

http://i.imgur.com/nfyPA.png

Lianru
June 11th, 2012, 07:21 AM
No, it's happening to me too. Small screen issues?

NuitTombee
June 11th, 2012, 07:49 AM
I dunno, is 1024x768 too small? I thought it was about midway. Even then I use Ctrl + MouseScroll to zoom out once.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 08:02 AM
And 25,000 chars for a blogpost and 100,000 for a forum post covers virtually everything except for exceptional circumstances, so why are you still arguing this?

100,000 chars is anywhere from 10,000-20,000 words. Most authors don't write chapters that long, so it should cover even fanfics.

Yeah, which is why I have not said a single thing about the limit on forum posts....


Again, what good reasons would there be for raising it more, other than "I can't get my point across?" If you never hit the limit at all, why do you even care that there is a limit? I could see if you keep smacking the limit as that would be annoying, but you almost never do, so really, why the hell are you complaining about this?

For the posts, I'm not. For blogs, I am, because I have hit the limit before.

Plus, like I said, I mainly just want a way around it in the case that there is actually a good reason why it is necessary, which is what double-posting allows.


That's the author's freedom to post it that way if they wish to do so. Likewise, you have the freedom to either get a program that can read it, ask them nicely to transcribe it, or wash your hands of it.

Sure, but you seem to think it's better that they post it that way, and want authors to do so. I'm simply pointing out that it is not.


Leave if you don't like it. I'm tired of you crying just because I won't change limits to what satisfies you, since you are the only one who complains about shit like this.

No, I'm "crying" because you treat anyone who complains about anything you've done with total and utter disdain, no matter how reasonable their arguments are.

If you were listening to my points and countering them with arguments, then fine, but you are not. Throughout this entire argument you have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said, despite me explicitly correcting you several times, you have admitted I have good points and then ignored them without any counter and you have repeatedly dismissed me with variations of "shut the fuck up" and "tough shit".

I was being entirely polite about this until you started acting like a dick towards me.


I'm especially tired of being called a tyrant. I told you to stop this and I meant it. If you want me to be a tyrant, let me know, and then I'll start treating you way worse than I actually do. After all, a tyrant doesn't allow for dissent - at all.

Ignoring all dissent (as you do) is not much better than outright punishing people for it. And, besides, I'd like to see you get that past the rest of the admins.


They kind of can't help it if you keep throwing it into their faces every time some forum policy happens that you don't like, because you will protest and complain for pages on end. Like you've been doing.

Yes, they can. They just ignore it. It's not hard. Your mouse (probably) has this nifty little wheel that is especially designed to handle situations just like this.


Right, so if anything, they should be shrunk. But I like to leave some wiggle room. I think what's set is reasonable for most purposes, and if not, it's not like you're PREVENTED from posting things. Delayed, maybe, but not prevented.

No, that is not how it works. You should not set up the forum to accomodate the majority and say "fuck everyone else", the forum should accomodate everyone, as far as is reasonably practical. If you have an actual reason why the limit on blogs and posts needs to be lower, then fine, but you don't. You're just setting an arbitrary limit because you can't accept the idea of people doing things in a non-DP-approved way, and then expecting us to argue why it needs to be higher.

Freedom does not work like that. I do not have to justify why I should be free to do something, you have to justify why I should not be. And, yes, I know you're just going to jump in with the same old, tired, "well, it's my forum" crap, but that just proves that you are a tyrant. Because only tyrants take the attitude that people should have to justify the freedoms they have, rather than the other way around.


Not if you explain your view civilly. Calling people tyrants and putting words/thoughts into my mouth ain't civil. After all, I could say your posts are diarrhea flowing from your fingertips, but I don't, now do I?

I was explaining my view quite civilly until you replied with something which boils down to "fuck you, this is how it is, and you can't do anything about it, so shut up".

Also, insults couched in "I could say that" are still insults. Don't try to pretend otherwise.


Name other people who care about the post limit as much as you do. Hell, get them to post in here.

If you're that frustrated about it, start a damn poll on it, so that it becomes public awareness.

Again, I do not care if other people are bothered by it. Freedom is not subject to majority vote.


There's ways to do shit, Mike, and while we do listen to serious complaints, it takes more than one person to lodge as a merit of concern. It takes a crowd. You're the only one who keeps arguing this, so unless that changes there is no point to changing the limits. You're one poster out of about 1000 active, and you don't run this forum, so sorry if I don't cater to your every whim.

And, yet again, you prove your total unwillingness to actually listen to people.

One person should be enough to "lodge as a merit of concern", if they actually have a reasonable point. What matters is not the weight of numbers, but the weight of argument.


More like "One person complaining about an already high limit isn't really worth anything." If a group of people complain, sure. One? Not without very good cause, and "I can't get my whole point across in 10,000 words!" isn't good enough cause. Trim down your frigging arguments. The mods are here to make things run smoothly, not kiss your ass.

There's a shock. You don't give a flying fuck about other people, only yourself and your opinions.


Go complain to vBulletin Solutions, then. They're the ones who integrated it into the core.

Well, yeah, I guess.


It's a phrase, not an insinuation. The idea is to not waste time, effort, and energy saying more than you need to.

Perhaps, but sometimes it takes more effort to say less, especially if you're being forced to fit to arbitrary word limits.


That's because you're correct: I do care about the situation if enough people think it's a problem. One person is not enough.

Except you clearly don't. You just care about your little tyranny by majority, and fuck the minority.


Put it this way, if I didn't care, I wouldn't have raised it at all from the defaults over a year ago.

I suspect that, had you not, several of the ther admins would have complained, let alone 90% of the forum.

Like I said, I am not complaining about the post length limit. That is reasonable and, as you say, even I have never hit it. My only issue, really, is with the limit for blogs. Sure, it's fine for most purposes, but there are occasions where it will not be, and you seem unwilling to accept that.


Unrelated, can we cut down the quote limit on messages to keep threads nice and succinct?

I was thinking a maximum of 3 quotes should mean that we can respond to multiple posts, but I'm thinking that 5 should cover virtually all cases.

No, that's just fucking stupid.

Also, I've responded to more than 5 posts in one go before, so that is not at all valid.


Indeed, which is why eventually I do stop replying, usually when I feel that Mike has gone from legitimate concerns to just plain whining, which is about the point the current one is at. Once the T-word comes out, that's when it's become that.]quote]

Well, if you actually showed some indication of listening to my "legitimate complaints" rather than saying "fuck you, I don't care" like you originally did, maybe you might get a better response.

[quote]I took a look in the Admin CP, and indeed, it seems there's no way to limit that without a mod. There is a way to limit what are called "Multi-Quotes" which quote multiple posts, but even that says there's nothing stopping the user from manually typing in a quote field.

I think it's silly anyway. There are plenty of good reasons to use more than five quotes, and if you implement that, I will complain to everyone I can find to get it reversed. You might not listen to me, but I'm pretty sure that Elf and Altima will.

Because, unlike you, they're actually reasonable people who aren't so damn arrogant they think that their opinion is worth the same as 100 other people's, and thus only that many people making a complaint, however legitimate, is enough for them to even take notice of it. And, nor do they accept your premise that the forum should only cater to the majority, and that anyone else should have arbitrary restrictions placed on them to make them fit in with the way the majority does things.

Mcjon01
June 11th, 2012, 08:18 AM
You say attachments are bad because there's no guarantee that people can see them given that there are people that even read the forums from their phone, then turn right around and defend huge-ass walls of text by telling people to use the scroll wheel on their mouse.

Come on, man.

(And I'm not going through the trouble of digging out quotes to respond to one by one, here or anywhere, because damned if that isn't the most tedious thing in the world on a touchscreen.)

food
June 11th, 2012, 09:00 AM
People must not suffer the tyranny of long posts and big images, unless they are my long posts and big images.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 09:12 AM
You say attachments are bad because there's no guarantee that people can see them given that there are people that even read the forums from their phone, then turn right around and defend huge-ass walls of text by telling people to use the scroll wheel on their mouse.

Come on, man.

(And I'm not going through the trouble of digging out quotes to respond to one by one, here or anywhere, because damned if that isn't the most tedious thing in the world on a touchscreen.)

People don't have to read walls of text, they can skip them. Even a phone doesn't usually make that too diffcult.

But, besides, there is a difference between saying "well, some people browse the site on phones, so we should limit the post length for their benefit" and saying "well, some people might want to read fanfics on phones, so we shouldn't deny the authors the right to make that possible".

Mcjon01
June 11th, 2012, 09:19 AM
Believe me, wall of text + el-cheapo "free with the contract" flip phone = living, endless nightmare.

clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickohgod whendoesitendclickclickclickclickclick

Cruor
June 11th, 2012, 09:37 AM
Believe me, wall of text + el-cheapo "free with the contract" flip phone = living, endless nightmare.

clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickohgod whendoesitendclickclickclickclickclick

Not even I would use a flip phone to browse BL >_>

And I'm the guy that uses paint for image compression by keep resaving things in jpg until the file size is small enough <_<

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 09:44 AM
Believe me, wall of text + el-cheapo "free with the contract" flip phone = living, endless nightmare.

clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickohgod whendoesitendclickclickclickclickclick

Well, yeah, but I don't think it's justified to restrict how people can post because of a few phone users. On the other hand, it is reasonable for the admins to accomodate people like that where possible, for example by not forcing fanfics into attachments (ignoring any other issues with that approach).

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 09:53 AM
Just going to start dropping useless points now.


For the posts, I'm not. For blogs, I am, because I have hit the limit before.

Plus, like I said, I mainly just want a way around it in the case that there is actually a good reason why it is necessary, which is what double-posting allows.Blogs take up space too just like posts do. Because they have a smaller limit, the table is smaller, which makes it quicker to process, which makes things move on to the next step of backups faster.

That, and nobody should need more than 25,000 chars in a blogpost. I've yet to see a legitimate post (i.e; something not us arguing) that goes over that limit, but if you'd like to point me to a few legitimate cases of it, that might change my mind. Emphasis on "might" as pointing out a few cases is not an automatic, guaranteed "You must change it now because I proved it."


Sure, but you seem to think it's better that they post it that way, and want authors to do so. I'm simply pointing out that it is not.I don't care how the hell they post it as long as it's under 100,000 characters per "chapter" or whatever. If it's longer, either split it or make it an attachment.


No, I'm "crying" because you treat anyone who complains about anything you've done with total and utter disdain, no matter how reasonable their arguments are.

If you were listening to my points and countering them with arguments, then fine, but you are not. Throughout this entire argument you have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said, despite me explicitly correcting you several times, you have admitted I have good points and then ignored them without any counter and you have repeatedly dismissed me with variations of "shut the fuck up" and "tough shit".

I was being entirely polite about this until you started acting like a dick towards me.And yet when Five_X asked me to move around the stuff in User Profiles, that was done without a problem.

Again, if you want the limits raised, point me to legitimate posts (or at least provide examples) of reasons that someone might need more than 25,000 chars - which again, is about 2,500-5,000 words - to blog about something. Aside from you "not being able to say what you want to say," I see no reasons. If anything, unless it's an actual, serious discussion, most blog replies don't go beyond a few paragraphs. Even the ones that do probably don't top a thousand words or so, so really, how the hell can you post things in such a way that takes you 2 1/2 - 5 times more text than most people to say?

As for that last part? It's just me keeping in line with a personal policy: I treat others how I want to be treated, but if they don't treat me relatively evenly, I'm not going to be as kind as I otherwise would. I'm fed up with you calling me a tyrant and accusing me of "the usual DP fuck-you atttiude," and to be utterly blunt, and I'm not going to let you just walk all over me.

I don't give a rat's ass if you like me or not, and I never have, but if you're going to talk to me, you're going to do so at least civilly and if you're not, then I'm not going to bother anymore. From now on when that attitude comes out, I'm going to simply ignore your requests, and you can then find another admin or moderator to handle it. I'm tired of it and I'm now washing my hands of it, going forward. I don't get angry very easily (and in truth I'm not even angry over this - more like exasperated) but I'm definitely out of patience on it, and considering I rarely run out of patience on anything, you probably deserve an award for that.

It's going too damn far, so either it's going to stop, or I'm simply going to ignore your requests until it stops, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. Perhaps when you treat me more like a person who works hard to keep this community relevant, secure, and a pleasant place to be instead of some goose-stepping powermonger who sets rules for the lulz and then beats off when he reads the complaints, then I'll take what you say more seriously.


No, that is not how it works. You should not set up the forum to accomodate the majority and say "fuck everyone else", the forum should accomodate everyone, as far as is reasonably practical. If you have an actual reason why the limit on blogs and posts needs to be lower, then fine, but you don't. You're just setting an arbitrary limit because you can't accept the idea of people doing things in a non-DP-approved way, and then expecting us to argue why it needs to be higher.See above, and yes, you are dodging the issue of why it should be higher. You're the only poster I can think of who ever has a chance in hell of hitting those limits unless someone is arguing with you, and nobody else has thought 25,000 was too low. If you want this to change, the burden is on you, whether it be proving reasons why, examples of how it's too short, or just plain starting a fucking poll and asking if they want it raised. All of these things are far, far more likely to get me to actually take action rather than "It's too short for me."

Really, for all the complaining you do, you sure don't do much to try to make a case - you just state "I don't like that this has a limit. You should change it."


Freedom does not work like that. I do not have to justify why I should be free to do something, you have to justify why I should not be. And, yes, I know you're just going to jump in with the same old, tired, "well, it's my forum" crap, but that just proves that you are a tyrant. Because only tyrants take the attitude that people should have to justify the freedoms they have, rather than the other way around.Tyrants would be deleting your posts and have tempbanned you for speaking out against them. Actually, tyrants would've permed you a long time ago. Once again, the fact you're here and able to post these things means, by definition, we're not tyrants, because tyrants are people who promise something and then say "lol, just kidding."

By the way, this is how laws change in most of the world, except that instead of saying "This law sucks, change it," they give reasons why. I once again point you to the above: Give me reasons why this should change, and please make it more than "I can't say what I want to say in 25,000 characters."


Again, I do not care if other people are bothered by it. Freedom is not subject to majority vote.You're also not the only person in the community who matters, so really, knock it off with the self-importance. You ain't any more special than the latest member who signed up. Get over it.

You know damn well that I've always said that changes happen for reasons - compelling reasons, not just "I don't like this" or "I think this limit is silly."


And, yet again, you prove your total unwillingness to actually listen to people.

One person should be enough to "lodge as a merit of concern", if they actually have a reasonable point. What matters is not the weight of numbers, but the weight of argument.And if it's an actual concern, then it does work. Five_X got stuff moved around in user profiles. Lianru got a new RSS icon. Neither of those were necessary either, but I could see where they're coming from.

Meanwhile, you're asking me to raise a number that is almost never hit, and the only reason I've seen you put forth is "25,000 characters aren't enough for me, and even if they're enough for everyone else, you should raise it anyway."


There's a shock. You don't give a flying fuck about other people, only yourself and your opinions.If I didn't give a flying fuck (on a galloping goose!) about other people, I'd probably not be a very well-liked person. Considering that you're one of the two people who I can think of that generally have a problem with me, I'd think you're pretty wrong on this point.

PS: I actually like to help people. It's what my career's going to be.


Perhaps, but sometimes it takes more effort to say less, especially if you're being forced to fit to arbitrary word limits.Again, if you can't fit your entire thoughts into 2,500-5,000 words - which is a fucking lot of words - then perhaps you should be focusing on refining your ability to get information across. Walls of texts are good for dissertations, not blogs.


Except you clearly don't. You just care about your little tyranny by majority, and fuck the minority.You also seem to think that I'm supposed to somehow make this place a utopia. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, I can't make everyone happy all of the time, so no, I don't bother to try because I'd drive myself insane if I did, just like mods don't automatically moderate every reported post. They weigh its importance and either let it slide or take action.

Raising an (already high) limit on blogs is, needless to say, so damn minor that, again, without either several people wanting this change, or actual grievances as to why it should be increased, there's no reason to. Once again, what sorts of things will you possibly say in a blog that will take more than 2,500 - 5,000 words?


I suspect that, had you not, several of the ther admins would have complained, let alone 90% of the forum.

Like I said, I am not complaining about the post length limit. That is reasonable and, as you say, even I have never hit it. My only issue, really, is with the limit for blogs. Sure, it's fine for most purposes, but there are occasions where it will not be, and you seem unwilling to accept that.I'd be a lot more willing to accept it if you gave examples instead of going "It's just too low" and "I can't make my posts fit in it." Examples, Mike. Give me REASONS why I should change the fucking thing!


Well, if you actually showed some indication of listening to my "legitimate complaints" rather than saying "fuck you, I don't care" like you originally did, maybe you might get a better response.Perhaps when you start giving me what I'm likewise asking for, I'll also start listening.


I think it's silly anyway. There are plenty of good reasons to use more than five quotes, and if you implement that, I will complain to everyone I can find to get it reversed. You might not listen to me, but I'm pretty sure that Elf and Altima will.Multi-Quote is not the same thing as regular post-quoting (it is quoting multiple posts from multiple people in one post), and again, I can't limit the amount of regular quotes in a post without a mod, and as I said above, even if I had set a limit on Multi-Quotes (which currently none exists), you could always do it manually anyway. Therefore, there is currently no way for me to implement it.


Because, unlike you, they're actually reasonable people who aren't so damn arrogant they think that their opinion is worth the same as 100 other people's, and thus only that many people making a complaint, however legitimate, is enough for them to even take notice of it. And, nor do they accept your premise that the forum should only cater to the majority, and that anyone else should have arbitrary restrictions placed on them to make them fit in with the way the majority does things.For the record, a handful of people (3-5) would probably be enough for me to at least consider the issue, as long as they had what I felt was a good reason. Your reasons, I feel, simply aren't good enough, so please provide me with some other examples if you want to sway me.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're getting them wrong. I think they care about the community - like I do - but if one person is complaining and the community isn't, it means that there's no serious problems in the community, so from there it then falls down to actual need for it to be raised, which so far, in my eyes, you've yet to prove.

And finally, once again, you're the only person who's complained about the blog character limit, ever. If all of these other people hated the "arbitrary restrictions" I'd expect them to speak up so I'd know of it, yet for some reason they're not. What am I supposed to do, assume there's some seething "silent minority" who wants it raised but are afraid to say it? Come on, let's be realistic - if nobody's saying anything, it's not a fucking issue for them.

I'm sorry that the messageboard settings don't revolve around you, Mike. Now if you'd like for me to actually pay attention to whatever reasons you have for me to raise the blog post, please remember what I said in this post. Or you can keep calling me an arrogant, self-centered tyrant, and then you can try to convince someone else, because I'm not going to listen to it anymore if you keep it up.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 02:52 PM
Blogs take up space too just like posts do. Because they have a smaller limit, the table is smaller, which makes it quicker to process, which makes things move on to the next step of backups faster.

Is that true?

Surely it's the size of the post that matters, not the theoretical limit. If all the posts are small, then


That, and nobody should need more than 25,000 chars in a blogpost. I've yet to see a legitimate post (i.e; something not us arguing) that goes over that limit, but if you'd like to point me to a few legitimate cases of it, that might change my mind. Emphasis on "might" as pointing out a few cases is not an automatic, guaranteed "You must change it now because I proved it."

It's rather damn difficult to do that when the limit ensures that going over it is impossible....


I don't care how the hell they post it as long as it's under 100,000 characters per "chapter" or whatever. If it's longer, either split it or make it an attachment.

You seemed to want to reduce the limit, though, even if you're not going to due to the fact that people would oppose it.

And yet when Five_X asked me to move around the stuff in User Profiles, that was done without a problem.


Again, if you want the limits raised, point me to legitimate posts (or at least provide examples) of reasons that someone might need more than 25,000 chars - which again, is about 2,500-5,000 words - to blog about something. Aside from you "not being able to say what you want to say," I see no reasons. If anything, unless it's an actual, serious discussion, most blog replies don't go beyond a few paragraphs. Even the ones that do probably don't top a thousand words or so, so really, how the hell can you post things in such a way that takes you 2 1/2 - 5 times more text than most people to say?

I don't see how our discussion was "not legitimate", and I don't see how else we could have had it.


As for that last part? It's just me keeping in line with a personal policy: I treat others how I want to be treated, but if they don't treat me relatively evenly, I'm not going to be as kind as I otherwise would. I'm fed up with you calling me a tyrant and accusing me of "the usual DP fuck-you atttiude," and to be utterly blunt, and I'm not going to let you just walk all over me.

Yeah, and I'm doing the same. Which, given the amount of utter contempt you tend to treat me with, means I'm heavily restricted by the rules of the site.


I don't give a rat's ass if you like me or not, and I never have, but if you're going to talk to me, you're going to do so at least civilly and if you're not, then I'm not going to bother anymore. From now on when that attitude comes out, I'm going to simply ignore your requests, and you can then find another admin or moderator to handle it. I'm tired of it and I'm now washing my hands of it, going forward. I don't get angry very easily (and in truth I'm not even angry over this - more like exasperated) but I'm definitely out of patience on it, and considering I rarely run out of patience on anything, you probably deserve an award for that.

Well, I was being civil until you started acting like a dick. That is your fault, not mine.


It's going too damn far, so either it's going to stop, or I'm simply going to ignore your requests until it stops, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. Perhaps when you treat me more like a person who works hard to keep this community relevant, secure, and a pleasant place to be instead of some goose-stepping powermonger who sets rules for the lulz and then beats off when he reads the complaints, then I'll take what you say more seriously.

And if you were actually willing to treat me like a fucking person and not a bloody insect who just exists to be insulted and ignored then I might not insult you back.


See above, and yes, you are dodging the issue of why it should be higher. You're the only poster I can think of who ever has a chance in hell of hitting those limits unless someone is arguing with you, and nobody else has thought 25,000 was too low. If you want this to change, the burden is on you, whether it be proving reasons why, examples of how it's too short, or just plain starting a fucking poll and asking if they want it raised. All of these things are far, far more likely to get me to actually take action rather than "It's too short for me."

Ah, once again, all you care about is the majority. You make arbitrary rules and then expect other people to have to justify changes to them. It is your job to justify the rules, not the other way around.


Really, for all the complaining you do, you sure don't do much to try to make a case - you just state "I don't like that this has a limit. You should change it."

I've made a perfectly valid case.


Tyrants would be deleting your posts and have tempbanned you for speaking out against them. Actually, tyrants would've permed you a long time ago. Once again, the fact you're here and able to post these things means, by definition, we're not tyrants, because tyrants are people who promise something and then say "lol, just kidding."

Yeah, well, fortunately, there are three actually reasonable admins on the board.


By the way, this is how laws change in most of the world, except that instead of saying "This law sucks, change it," they give reasons why. I once again point you to the above: Give me reasons why this should change, and please make it more than "I can't say what I want to say in 25,000 characters."

"I can't say what I want (or, rather, need) in 25,000 characters" is a perfectly valid reason unless you have an actual counter to that. There is no justification for you to just set arbitrary limits unless it is technically necessary for you to set them that low, and I cannot see how it is.


You're also not the only person in the community who matters, so really, knock it off with the self-importance. You ain't any more special than the latest member who signed up. Get over it.

No, perhaps not, but I am also no less "special" than you, and yet you act otherwise.


You know damn well that I've always said that changes happen for reasons - compelling reasons, not just "I don't like this" or "I think this limit is silly."

You've yet to provide a "compelling reason" for this, certainly. And, like I said, my main issue is about the inability to double-post to get around the limit. If you can do that, I can live with it because there is a bypass available if it's needed.


And if it's an actual concern, then it does work. Five_X got stuff moved around in user profiles. Lianru got a new RSS icon. Neither of those were necessary either, but I could see where they're coming from.

And, yet, you admitted that I had a point, and still ignored me.


Meanwhile, you're asking me to raise a number that is almost never hit, and the only reason I've seen you put forth is "25,000 characters aren't enough for me, and even if they're enough for everyone else, you should raise it anyway."

If it's rarely hit, then why not raise it?


Again, if you can't fit your entire thoughts into 2,500-5,000 words - which is a fucking lot of words - then perhaps you should be focusing on refining your ability to get information across. Walls of texts are good for dissertations, not blogs.

Sorry, but I see no issue with being a little verbose, and I don't see why I should be forced to change that just because you don't like it.


You also seem to think that I'm supposed to somehow make this place a utopia. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, I can't make everyone happy all of the time, so no, I don't bother to try because I'd drive myself insane if I did, just like mods don't automatically moderate every reported post. They weigh its importance and either let it slide or take action.

In other words, yet more tyranny by majority crap....


Raising an (already high) limit on blogs is, needless to say, so damn minor that, again, without either several people wanting this change, or actual grievances as to why it should be increased, there's no reason to.

But it's also an utterly trivial change, so the fact that it's minor is irrelevant. Indeed, you changed it three times just to continue an argument....


Once again, what sorts of things will you possibly say in a blog that will take more than 2,500 - 5,000 words?

I'm pretty sure I could find things. Not to mention the discussion we had, which could simply not have happened anywhere else.


I'd be a lot more willing to accept it if you gave examples instead of going "It's just too low" and "I can't make my posts fit in it." Examples, Mike. Give me REASONS why I should change the fucking thing!

I gave you a damn reason. The fact that posts can't fit in it is good enough reason in itself.


Perhaps when you start giving me what I'm likewise asking for, I'll also start listening.

And perhaps when you start listening rather than ignoring me and then just insulting me, I'll stop being aggressive in return. You were the one who started this.


Multi-Quote is not the same thing as regular post-quoting (it is quoting multiple posts from multiple people in one post), and again, I can't limit the amount of regular quotes in a post without a mod, and as I said above, even if I had set a limit on Multi-Quotes (which currently none exists), you could always do it manually anyway. Therefore, there is currently no way for me to implement it.

Yeah, multi-quote isn't something I tend to use anyway, so that wouldn't affect me.

The point is that I don't think you should implement any limit on quotes, even if such a mod existed. That was not me complaining at you, it was just me stating my opinion.


For the record, a handful of people (3-5) would probably be enough for me to at least consider the issue, as long as they had what I felt was a good reason. Your reasons, I feel, simply aren't good enough, so please provide me with some other examples if you want to sway me.

If one person comes up with it, you should "consider the issue". One person can still be right.


Also, I'm pretty sure you're getting them wrong. I think they care about the community - like I do - but if one person is complaining and the community isn't, it means that there's no serious problems in the community, so from there it then falls down to actual need for it to be raised, which so far, in my eyes, you've yet to prove.

Again, I should not need to prove I "need" it to be raised, you should prove it should not be raised.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 03:10 PM
God I wish DP just banned you already. That'd be one act of tyrannism nobody would mind.

HappyCube
June 11th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I'd like to step in and say that you, Kyte, haven't been a help in this at all. All I've seen you do in this thread is come in and antagonize Mike, even before it started to escalate hard. You made it a self-fufilling prophecy. Please stop these mindless posts that have no other purpose than to rile to him and be filled with malice.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 03:31 PM
Only the last one, the others were valid arguments.

HappyCube
June 11th, 2012, 03:38 PM
How did this devolve into DP vs Mike again? Jeez, is every change a personal attack against you, Mike?


That, for one, could've been kept to yourself or made to sound nicer. But this in itself isn't a good thing to talk about, so I'll stop after this.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 03:56 PM
That, for one, could've been kept to yourself or made to sound nicer. But this in itself isn't a good thing to talk about, so I'll stop after this.

Yeah, and it wasn't even true, either.

In fact, his post, and DP's response to my (entirely reasonable) reply were what started the whole damn argument.

Trevelyan
June 11th, 2012, 05:51 PM
I feel like I'm trolling just by stepping in here, but . . . why is this such a big deal?

Since the limit has now been set, people using the blogs and the board will let us* see if the current limit is too high or too low. Once that's established, hey presto, we* can alter the limit in line with the evidence at hand.

Now we've gotten onto arguing about who started the argument. There is literally no point to this.

*By which, I mean our beloved Administrator For Life, Major General Doctor Professor D. Arples. Fellate him, vigorously.

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 05:55 PM
It's rather damn difficult to do that when the limit ensures that going over it is impossible....So make it shorter or wait.


I don't see how our discussion was "not legitimate", and I don't see how else we could have had it.The discussion is legitimate; the reason, I feel, is not. Everyone else but you can keep it under 25k. To you, this means I should raise limits. I say "Give me examples of things that would go over that" and what you said basically boiled down to "I can't do my arguments under that limit."

Well then, it's time to pick and choose your arguments, or wait a little bit between posts. I'm not raising global limits for one person anymore. That was the mistake I did - thanks to you - on blogs four times in a goddamn row. Anytime global board policies are being shaped by one person, that's bad.

The mistake I did was to even raise it in the first place. You called me on that, and you have a point there; that was wrong of me to do and I should've never raised it up like that in the first place. That's why I cut it back down (admittedly to a number still higher than it was originally - something you seem to be ignoring in all of this was that it was originally 10k, which people were still able to fit their blog posts under just fine) and why, without a more compelling reason than "One person can't make his arguments fit under this limit," it's not going to change.


Yeah, and I'm doing the same. Which, given the amount of utter contempt you tend to treat me with, means I'm heavily restricted by the rules of the site.I state why I feel it shouldn't be changed, and you come out with the "Ah, there's the usual DP-fuck-you policy." (http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/2308-4-2-Upgrade-Complete?p=807858&viewfull=1#post807858)

In a word: Bullshit.


Well, I was being civil until you started acting like a dick. That is your fault, not mine.See above.


And if you were actually willing to treat me like a fucking person and not a bloody insect who just exists to be insulted and ignored then I might not insult you back.If you were willing to treat me like a person who works hard to keep a community going, and not alternately a faceless bureaucrat (at best) or an absolute "tyrant" who's sole point in making rules is to piss one person off (usually), you'd probably get a lot further with me too.

I'm tired of it, Mike. Period. I don't care if you like me or not, but with you, it seems I either have one of two choices:


Do whatever you're demanding to make the problem go away, no matter how ridiculous it may be for the board, or
Don't do it and be called a tyrant within 25 posts, guaranteed.

Not happening anymore. It's that simple. I put too much time, money, and energy in this place to have to deal with your mouth just because you don't like a decision I make. You don't even really ASK - you DEMAND. Most other people have the goddamn common courtesy to throw in a "please" or something.


I've made a perfectly valid case."I'm very poor at meeting limits" isn't a valid case, when everyone else has no problems doing so. This argument only holds weight when other people are having trouble with it too. Nobody else is. Therefore, this isn't valid; it's a sign that you can't keep things short and simple, which is not my problem.


Yeah, well, fortunately, there are three actually reasonable admins on the board.I'm sure if I were that unreasonable I'd not be here anymore.


"I can't say what I want (or, rather, need) in 25,000 characters" is a perfectly valid reason unless you have an actual counter to that. There is no justification for you to just set arbitrary limits unless it is technically necessary for you to set them that low, and I cannot see how it is.Again, give me an example of when you would need to go over 25,000 characters. For all this talk of "I can't do it in under that!" you're not proving examples of what would make you go over!

Just saying "I can't do that" isn't going to work. If you want limits raised, there has to be a better and more sufficient reason than this. Again, nobody else on these forums has a problem meeting that. You're asking me to change a global, boardwide policy to accommodate one person, and then when I ask you to give me a compelling reason, it's "Because you should, since I can't make mine that short."

That's not how it works. It's up to you to make your arguments less tangential. And for the record, I did look and quotes are indeed not counted, so that means yes, you have all 25,000 chars to yourself.


No, perhaps not, but I am also no less "special" than you, and yet you act otherwise.On a human level, no, but considering that I do generally run the forum, keep it upgraded security-wise, and have paid money to give this place more functionality, it does mean I have done a bit more in a community sense. Does that mean you should kiss my ass? Certainly not, but it does mean you should at least appreciate all the hard work I've done and will continue to do for this place, instead of making my job harder because you don't like the choices I've made.


You've yet to provide a "compelling reason" for this, certainly. And, like I said, my main issue is about the inability to double-post to get around the limit. If you can do that, I can live with it because there is a bypass available if it's needed.You've also yet to provide a reason other than "I can't meet that limit and I'm unwilling to try because to me that means that I'll be forced to cut words." Until you do, this limit is probably not changing, since the other factors that would make me consider it more - multiple complaints, etc. - aren't there. This is thus a one-person issue, and I'm not going to be shaping global, boardwide policies due to one person.


And, yet, you admitted that I had a point, and still ignored me.The point I admitted on was "You raised it when it was convenient to you." That much is true - I did raise it due to that argument, but that was the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do would've been to trim my argument down more. That's why it got re-reduced, and why without a very compelling reason, I'm not going to raise it again.


If it's rarely hit, then why not raise it?If it's rarely hit, why bother raising it? It's already high enough!


Sorry, but I see no issue with being a little verbose, and I don't see why I should be forced to change that just because you don't like it.Because in real life you can't talk someone's ear off for five hours. Furthermore, shorter posts mean having to do less reading to get to the main thrust of the point for whoever posted that.


But it's also an utterly trivial change, so the fact that it's minor is irrelevant. Indeed, you changed it three times just to continue an argument....Which was wrong of me to do and a mistake on my part. I won't be doing it again.


I'm pretty sure I could find things. Not to mention the discussion we had, which could simply not have happened anywhere else.Then please, by all means, present them! The sole reason I've seen you give isn't compelling enough for me. More reasons might stimulate more discussion on it, or someone else saying "Hey, that's actually a good reason." Those are the sorts of things I can certainly take into account as reasons why it should be raised.


I gave you a damn reason. The fact that posts can't fit in it is good enough reason in itself.Blogs aren't meant to be held to the same amount of content as posts. They're shorter things, more for fun.


And perhaps when you start listening rather than ignoring me and then just insulting me, I'll stop being aggressive in return. You were the one who started this.See the link above.


If one person comes up with it, you should "consider the issue". One person can still be right.Which I did. I'm still waiting on a reason other than the single reason you've prevented thus far.


Again, I should not need to prove I "need" it to be raised, you should prove it should not be raised.Which I did - nobody else has problems keeping it under 25k chars, only you. One person does not change a global, boardwide policy, just because they can't keep things to the point and instead feel the need to be verbose.


I feel like I'm trolling just by stepping in here, but . . . why is this such a big deal?

Since the limit has now been set, people using the blogs and the board will let us* see if the current limit is too high or too low. Once that's established, hey presto, we* can alter the limit in line with the evidence at hand.

Now we've gotten onto arguing about who started the argument. There is literally no point to this.

*By we, I mean our beloved Administrator For Life, Major General Doctor Professor D. Arples. Fellate him, vigorously.For the record, the original limit was 10k, and nobody had problems keeping it under that, but I re-set it to 25k... which, if virtually everyone could make 10k, I think even fewer people will have a problem with 25k.

And if you go over, it does tell you how many chars you used, so you know how much you need to trim.

Trevelyan
June 11th, 2012, 06:14 PM
Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.Precisely correct, Victor Ortega.

Trevelyan
June 11th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Precisely correct, Victor Ortega.

You have already tapped out.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 06:51 PM
So make it shorter or wait.

The discussion is legitimate; the reason, I feel, is not. Everyone else but you can keep it under 25k. To you, this means I should raise limits. I say "Give me examples of things that would go over that" and what you said basically boiled down to "I can't do my arguments under that limit."

It is not easy to just shorten a discussion when you have a point to make. Indeed, given that you yourself preferred to raise the limit rather than do so, your argument is quite clearly not valid.


Well then, it's time to pick and choose your arguments, or wait a little bit between posts. I'm not raising global limits for one person anymore. That was the mistake I did - thanks to you - on blogs four times in a goddamn row. Anytime global board policies are being shaped by one person, that's bad.

The mistake I did was to even raise it in the first place. You called me on that, and you have a point there; that was wrong of me to do and I should've never raised it up like that in the first place. That's why I cut it back down (admittedly to a number still higher than it was originally - something you seem to be ignoring in all of this was that it was originally 10k, which people were still able to fit their blog posts under just fine) and why, without a more compelling reason than "One person can't make his arguments fit under this limit," it's not going to change.

Why?

There is nothing at all wrong about policies being shaped by one person if that person happens to be on the extreme end of something. The board should be as useable as possible for everyone, not just the majority. Sure, there are occasions where you genuinely do need to ignore the minority in that way, but you have not yet explained why this is one of them.


I state why I feel it shouldn't be changed, and you come out with the "Ah, there's the usual DP-fuck-you policy." (http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/2308-4-2-Upgrade-Complete?p=807858&viewfull=1#post807858)

In a word: Bullshit.

Actually, I was referring to the point (earlier than that statement) where I said (to Kyte)


I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.

and you responded with


C'est la vie.

How is that not rude and dismissive? And that was when I was being entirely polite.


See above.

And see what I said above. You started treating me like crap before I did so to you.


If you were willing to treat me like a person who works hard to keep a community going, and not alternately a faceless bureaucrat (at best) or an absolute "tyrant" who's sole point in making rules is to piss one person off (usually), you'd probably get a lot further with me too.

That's not what I claim, but you do not listen to me, and you quite simply do not seem to care about individuals, only the entire group.


I'm tired of it, Mike. Period. I don't care if you like me or not, but with you, it seems I either have one of two choices:


Do whatever you're demanding to make the problem go away, no matter how ridiculous it may be for the board, or
Don't do it and be called a tyrant within 25 posts, guaranteed.


But what I asked for is not in any way "ridiculous". Asking for the limit to be infinite would be, asking for it to be higher than 25,000 characters is not.


"I'm very poor at meeting limits" isn't a valid case, when everyone else has no problems doing so. This argument only holds weight when other people are having trouble with it too. Nobody else is. Therefore, this isn't valid; it's a sign that you can't keep things short and simple, which is not my problem.

So, once again, it boils down to "you don't do things my way, so tough shit"....


Again, give me an example of when you would need to go over 25,000 characters. For all this talk of "I can't do it in under that!" you're not proving examples of what would make you go over!

The discussion I had with you, for one thing.


Just saying "I can't do that" isn't going to work. If you want limits raised, there has to be a better and more sufficient reason than this. Again, nobody else on these forums has a problem meeting that. You're asking me to change a global, boardwide policy to accommodate one person, and then when I ask you to give me a compelling reason, it's "Because you should, since I can't make mine that short."

Again, why should I have to justify raising your arbitrary restrictions. Anyone reasonable would see that the person who needs to justify them is you, as with any arbitrary rule.


That's not how it works. It's up to you to make your arguments less tangential. And for the record, I did look and quotes are indeed not counted, so that means yes, you have all 25,000 chars to yourself.

Which means, therefore, that you yourself are an example of someone who couldn't fit under the very same limit....


On a human level, no, but considering that I do generally run the forum, keep it upgraded security-wise, and have paid money to give this place more functionality, it does mean I have done a bit more in a community sense. Does that mean you should kiss my ass? Certainly not, but it does mean you should at least appreciate all the hard work I've done and will continue to do for this place, instead of making my job harder because you don't like the choices I've made.

Yeah, sure, but when you continually treat me like shit and act as if you're a million times better and more important than me, what do you expect me to think?


You've also yet to provide a reason other than "I can't meet that limit and I'm unwilling to try because to me that means that I'll be forced to cut words." Until you do, this limit is probably not changing, since the other factors that would make me consider it more - multiple complaints, etc. - aren't there. This is thus a one-person issue, and I'm not going to be shaping global, boardwide policies due to one person.

And you have yet to provide a reason why it should be that low....


The point I admitted on was "You raised it when it was convenient to you." That much is true - I did raise it due to that argument, but that was the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do would've been to trim my argument down more. That's why it got re-reduced, and why without a very compelling reason, I'm not going to raise it again.

But that's my point. Even you found the limit too low, and you raised it accordingly. So, how can you claim with a straight face that it is not?


If it's rarely hit, why bother raising it? It's already high enough!

Because it doesn't matter if you do raise it, and it will help in the few cases where it is hit.


Because in real life you can't talk someone's ear off for five hours. Furthermore, shorter posts mean having to do less reading to get to the main thrust of the point for whoever posted that.

This is not real life....


Then please, by all means, present them! The sole reason I've seen you give isn't compelling enough for me. More reasons might stimulate more discussion on it, or someone else saying "Hey, that's actually a good reason." Those are the sorts of things I can certainly take into account as reasons why it should be raised.

Well, I've yet to write any blog posts, but if I did I suspect there is a chance of them going over that limit. My discussions have actual weight to them.


Blogs aren't meant to be held to the same amount of content as posts. They're shorter things, more for fun.

Yeah, sure, but there are a few occasions where that was not true, and I see no reason not to carer for them.


Which I did. I'm still waiting on a reason other than the single reason you've prevented thus far.

Well, then, what about my freedom to post more than 25k character posts? Why should I be denied that?

What justification do you have for that limit, other than it being a number which you like?


Which I did - nobody else has problems keeping it under 25k chars, only you. One person does not change a global, boardwide policy, just because they can't keep things to the point and instead feel the need to be verbose.

In what way is that any kind of argument for it being 25k? Give me one reason why 25k is better than 50k.


For the record, the original limit was 10k, and nobody had problems keeping it under that, but I re-set it to 25k... which, if virtually everyone could make 10k, I think even fewer people will have a problem with 25k.

Again, that does not justify setting it to only 25k. It's an entirely arbitrary limit, and your only argument for it is "well, it's what I want it to be, and I'm in charge".


And if you go over, it does tell you how many chars you used, so you know how much you need to trim.

Have you ever tried trimming a 25k character post? It's fucking difficult....


Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.

If it required DP to spend hours fiddling with the system or finding a mod, I would entirely agree. But, it does not. It requires him to change one number in the admin control panel (which he only just lowered, in fact). There is no reason why he cannot just do it, other than him being unnecessarily instringent, and working on a point of principle that he will only ever act for a majority, even if acting for the minority does not in any way inconvinience the majority.

Lianru
June 11th, 2012, 06:56 PM
I really think that the simplest solution to this problem is
1. Don't worry about it until you actually do get a 25k post,
2. In the rare event that one of those pops up, just wait out the 10 min. to post it. It's not that big of a deal, it's only 10 minutes, and
3. If you argument is going that long, you could probably find a way to express yourself the same way in less words anyways. Being concise is a good quality.

In other words, don't be too hypothetical, because it doesn't help. Theoretically, you could reach a post with any number of characters, but can we extend the post limits to infinity? Probably not.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 06:56 PM
It's change the number and then put up with the consequences of changing that number. He already told you those consequences.

Also: "C'est la vie"? Dismissive? You're out of your goddamn mind. It means what it means. "That's life". Not everyone gets what they want. That is life.

Also what Ruru said. If people tried to solve for every hypothetical then nothing would ever get done.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Also: "C'est la vie"? Dismissive? You're out of your goddamn mind. It means what it means. "That's life". Not everyone gets what they want. That is life.

How the hell is responding to an argument with "that's life" not dismissive...?


Also what Ruru said. If people tried to solve for every hypothetical then nothing would ever get done.

Yes, but a) this is not "hypothetical" (it happened already) and b) it's trivial to solve.

Five_X
June 11th, 2012, 07:25 PM
Is the post character limit really only 25k characters? That seems incredibly unlikely.

lantzblades
June 11th, 2012, 07:37 PM
You're the only poster I can think of

I realize that due to my own policy of short chapters to assist readers I might appear to not have a desire to have higher limits or reach said limits but I do and would. just saying that mike's not the only poster.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 07:38 PM
Is the post character limit really only 25k characters? That seems incredibly unlikely.

For blogs (and blog comments), not for forum posts.

Five_X
June 11th, 2012, 07:51 PM
For blogs (and blog comments), not for forum posts.

Oh, for that? Carry on, then. If you can trim an essay, you can trim a blog post. Or put it into the comments or whatever. Simple enough. 25k characters makes for about... 3000 or so words? Decent enough.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 07:53 PM
Oh, for that? Carry on, then. If you can trim an essay, you can trim a blog post. Or put it into the comments or whatever. Simple enough. 25k characters makes for about... 3000 or so words? Decent enough.

I can't trim essays, though. I usually spent longer trying to do so than I did writing the damn things in the first place....

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 08:17 PM
Why?

There is nothing at all wrong about policies being shaped by one person if that person happens to be on the extreme end of something. The board should be as useable as possible for everyone, not just the majority. Sure, there are occasions where you genuinely do need to ignore the minority in that way, but you have not yet explained why this is one of them.So just because one person says "I don't like this," people should just bend over to accommodate them?

I'm sorry, that's not how things work. Otherwise I'd be running in eight different directions every time anyone wants anything changed. These sorts of things might seem like an innocent request to you, but they set precedents, and it's not fair if I do something for you, only you, but then not someone else. Things like the user profile tab-switching and the RSS icon affect everybody... and realistically, the post limit is right now affecting one person.

Otherwise, people will just go "Well, you raised the post limit when he asked for it, why won't you do this for me?"


How is that not rude and dismissive? And that was when I was being entirely polite.Because you freely admitted that you wanted to bypass the rules, which you shouldn't be doing. Rules aren't there "at your convenience" or "when you deem them to be." You don't like the doublepost stuff, but there are some people who have BAD habits of double or even multiple-posting, so the greater good of reducing that trumps your ability to "work around" limits.


And see what I said above. You started treating me like crap before I did so to you.C'est la vie = "That's life" (or if you prefer more direct French, "It's life") and in this case it basically meant that I had no sympathy for your reasoning since you clearly stated you just wanted to bypass the limit because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, which is really the same point you've been arguing for the last 100 posts or so. My view on this particular point is very unlikely to change, considering nobody else is having issues with it; ergo, c'est la vie, so if you want change, please find another reason, or more people willing to claim this is an issue.


That's not what I claim, but you do not listen to me, and you quite simply do not seem to care about individuals, only the entire group.Most places don't change their policies based on one person either, for the reasons I mentioned above. The ones who CAN do this either have lots of staff or lots of money, and we have neither.


But what I asked for is not in any way "ridiculous". Asking for the limit to be infinite would be, asking for it to be higher than 25,000 characters is not.Until 50,000 isn't good enough. Then 75,000. Then 100,000. Then eventually, "Why have a limit at all?"


So, once again, it boils down to "you don't do things my way, so tough shit"....Love how you constantly interpret this like that. No, it means "Nobody else has problems with it." Furthermore, you yourself admitted you're very poor at concise arguments. That doesn't mean I should raise the limits so you can argue a very verbose argument; it means you should really refine your arguing skills, since again, nobody wants to read a 5,000 word post if they could sum it down to 1,000.


The discussion I had with you, for one thing.Something that isn't argument-related, since arguments with you are almost guaranteed to smack limits unless I keep my points short, like I am.


Again, why should I have to justify raising your arbitrary restrictions. Anyone reasonable would see that the person who needs to justify them is you, as with any arbitrary rule.Because everybody else is able to get it under the limits just goddamn fine, Mike! Therefore there is no problem with the limit as it is except for one, specific case - you. And with you, it's going to be only a matter of time until whatever new limit I set it at - unless I set it ridiculously fucking high - is going to be "too low" once again, leading you to complain yet again, and making me want to bash my head into my keyboard.

Your argument holds weight if there are other people who are having a problem with it, but so far, you are the only one fighting tooth and claw over this. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, and some of them don't even care probably. There is no myriad of users complaining about the limit - there is one. Therefore, the system works as a whole except for that one, so that one person is the one who must try to prove, justifiably, why the limit should be increased.

Arguments are not something meant to happen in blogs, so to try to minimize it from spiraling out of control, like it did last time, those limits are going to stay in force unless you can present some sort of non-argument situation, because that's the only one I ever see it potentially running against the limit, and my main goal is to cut down the walls of argument texts that any rule that you don't like inevitably turns into.


Which means, therefore, that you yourself are an example of someone who couldn't fit under the very same limit....It also means that I should have argued better. More points were being made, not less. From now on, if my argument is too long, I'm going to trim it down, though I'm not sure if you can do the same.


Yeah, sure, but when you continually treat me like shit and act as if you're a million times better and more important than me, what do you expect me to think?I hardly think I'm "better" or "more important," but I do feel I should at least be given a little gratitude for keeping this place going. After all, at the end of the day, I have to try to keep a whole community happy, and that means juggling every user who posts to some degree.

You are, frankly put, abusive to anyone who is in a position of authority anytime something is done that you don't agree with - we both know how you talked to Hymn and Altima, and the latter is someone who you consider a friend. That's inexcusable. I damn well don't talk to my friends that way (unless it's blatantly obvious I'm joking) and really, just because I'm an admin, it doesn't mean I have to sit here and take your abusive statements. Most admins on most forums would say "Here's the banhammer, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out," and despite the fact we're not going to do that, you're going to just keep calling me a tyrant, power-greedy motherfucker?

I'm not standing for it anymore. I can't stress enough that I've had it. So from now on, the second your posts revert to that bullshit, I'm going to ignore your posts for a little while. I'm here to serve the community, but that doesn't mean the community has a right to be offensive and insulting to me if my view doesn't agree with theirs.


And you have yet to provide a reason why it should be that low....You keep returning to this for some reason, and I can't fathom why. If anything, 10k is enough for most blogposts so if anything, it could still go LOWER, but lower isn't the argument. You're trying to convince me why it's supposed to be raised, Mike.


But that's my point. Even you found the limit too low, and you raised it accordingly. So, how can you claim with a straight face that it is not?Because it was wrong to raise it just so we could argue. It means that we're not making good enough arguments. A good argument says what it needs to say in less words - not more. A person's arguments tend to start very broad, then narrow down to specific points. Once the points are known, the position is established, and from there the fat can be trimmed. An example of this is of you continually bringing up "Why do you have it set so low?" That's not the argument, Mike, the argument is "Why should it be raised?"


Because it doesn't matter if you do raise it, and it will help in the few cases where it is hit.Makes the table bigger. Makes it less efficiently compressed. Makes it take longer to back up. Annoys people because there's yet more long arguing posts, and now it's infesting the blog too.

This is why people are afraid of me getting the wiki, Mike, because they don't want to turn the discussion pages into ridiculously long pages of arguing with you.


This is not real life....It sure is. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean I'm some character, who is preprogrammed into a role and simply acts it out. I have a psuedonym but I'm a real person, same as you, and so that means that I have my own thoughts, rules, mores, and what have you. Since I'm in a position of authority, that means that you automatically like me less (as you generally did not have problems with me on the old boards before those were pulled down) but it doesn't give you the right to call me a tyrant just because I don't agree with your views and so won't change the board rules, and when I give you my rationalization as to why, you just basically expect me to deal with it and do it anyway.

I'm not going to change how I am for you, just because you want me to - after all, I can't make you change like how I want you to either. This standoffish attitude you have isn't going to do anything. You need to, simply put, learn how to negotiate with people. "My way or the highway" sorts of things don't work on me, or for me. And while I'm sure you'll say me not changing the limit is exactly that, I again point to the fact that nobody else has these problems, so for 99.99% of all of our forum users, the limits in place work. They don't work for one person, and since that person is unwilling to try to make his arguments less verbose, why should I have to expand it (and keep doing so every time he hits that barrier, because let's face it, it will happen!) just because he wants it? No, the better route in the end is to keep it fairly simple, and if he can't cope with it, then unfortunately, he's going to have to learn how to, just like he had to learn how to walk, talk, and use the toilet.


Well, I've yet to write any blog posts, but if I did I suspect there is a chance of them going over that limit. My discussions have actual weight to them.Fine, but again, that limit is anywhere from 2,500 - 5,000 words. You can say a lot in that amount, but you can say even more if you keep it to-the-point and on-topic. Ranting and raving just wastes words and are 100% filler.


Yeah, sure, but there are a few occasions where that was not true, and I see no reason not to carer for them.Neither do I - which is why I reset the limit to 25k instead of 10k. 25k chars should be enough to get most things across without turning the page into HOLY FUCK SCROLLING CHALLENGE, especially on mobile devices.


Well, then, what about my freedom to post more than 25k character posts? Why should I be denied that?

What justification do you have for that limit, other than it being a number which you like?As has been said before: Table size, readability concerns, mobile users, and nobody wants to scroll through a huge post of yours just to get to the next point of the discussion that they're interested in.


In what way is that any kind of argument for it being 25k? Give me one reason why 25k is better than 50k.See above.


Again, that does not justify setting it to only 25k. It's an entirely arbitrary limit, and your only argument for it is "well, it's what I want it to be, and I'm in charge".Wrong again. It's a number I came upon after thinking about what sorts of blog posts most blog posts will be. Generally speaking, blogs are very short posts - even the longer ones might barely scratch a thousand words, which is (using a rough approximation as I do of assuming words are 5-8 characters long) of 5,000-8,000 characters.

Next, I think about longer points, or someone posting part of a fanfic chapter. Admittedly, that might be double or triple that, so we'll say 2,000-3,000 words. That's 10,000-24,000 characters. At that point, I decided it'd be nice to just make it divisible by five, and so 25,000 chars became the final number. Anything longer should probably either go into a forum post, or be trimmed.

It's not like I'm picking numbers out of a hat here. I'm trying to predict the content, and furthermore, you almost never post blog entries (unless you're mad at us it seems, because I've yet to see an entry on you that isn't that). I go by the typical users, not the extreme users, and so in that sense I come up with numbers that work for virtually everybody. Raising limits should be a last-resort thing - not a first-resort. First-resort should be making your argument leaner and meaner, because that makes it better.


Have you ever tried trimming a 25k character post? It's fucking difficult....Considering I never make them since I can keep my points pretty on-target? Nope.


I realize that due to my own policy of short chapters to assist readers I might appear to not have a desire to have higher limits or reach said limits but I do and would. just saying that mike's not the only poster.Alright then, so it's at least more than one person. This makes it hold some weight, but again, this is a character limit that allows (at worst) approximately 3,000 words, and generally speaking probably closer to 3,500-4,500, with a rough max of 5,000, before the limit is hit and it tells you to trim stuff.

How long are your chapters, usually? Most people don't write chapters past that length, and admittedly, if they do, they've probably already got a topic in the fanfics forum.

RadiantBeam
June 11th, 2012, 08:19 PM
Can't we all just agree to disagree? No?

Counterguardian
June 11th, 2012, 08:25 PM
I've never really liked the concept "agree to disagree". It only works when there's a difference in opinion on a fundamental premise.

This is a matter of (for the most part) ethics in management here.



I can't trim essays, though. I usually spent longer trying to do so than I did writing the damn things in the first place....

I have that exact problem when I'm trying to target specific sentences and cut out superfluous words. I find that it makes it much better for me when I actually start targeting concepts spread over several paragraphs and look into how I can cut it in half.

Reading your posts reminds me of doing my English finals (mandatory for everyone) for my tertiary exams in high school. We had an essay component that required to to a language analysis on a current news article, and everybody tries picking it apart one sentence at a time to meticulously analyze it, take two hours doing so, then realize they don't have enough time for the other two essays. And the thing is those people, 88% of the nation, never knew when to stop to think "can I just cut it down instead of going with my instinct to do it all?". It never occurred to them that addressing the issue broadly in terms of concept and using specific examples only to illustrate may have been a better option for succinctness, time-effectiveness, sophistication, and ultimately better marks.


My point is, being concise isn't and shouldn't be that much of a burden for you. It'll even help get your points across better instead of having people dismiss it out of hand because they can't be bothered reading all of that. And I'm absolutely certain I'm speaking for most of the forum here when I say that.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 08:39 PM
So just because one person says "I don't like this," people should just bend over to accommodate them?

I'm sorry, that's not how things work. Otherwise I'd be running in eight different directions every time anyone wants anything changed. These sorts of things might seem like an innocent request to you, but they set precedents, and it's not fair if I do something for you, only you, but then not someone else. Things like the user profile tab-switching and the RSS icon affect everybody... and realistically, the post limit is right now affecting one person.

Otherwise, people will just go "Well, you raised the post limit when he asked for it, why won't you do this for me?"

You wouldn't be "doing it for me", as such, you'd be doing it because there is no reason not to set it higher in the first place.


Because you freely admitted that you wanted to bypass the rules, which you shouldn't be doing. Rules aren't there "at your convenience" or "when you deem them to be." You don't like the doublepost stuff, but there are some people who have BAD habits of double or even multiple-posting, so the greater good of reducing that trumps your ability to "work around" limits.

Sorry, but rules should be bypassable. You have mods to handle cases where they shouldn't be.


C'est la vie = "That's life" (or if you prefer more direct French, "It's life") and in this case it basically meant that I had no sympathy for your reasoning since you clearly stated you just wanted to bypass the limit because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, which is really the same point you've been arguing for the last 100 posts or so. My view on this particular point is very unlikely to change, considering nobody else is having issues with it; ergo, c'est la vie, so if you want change, please find another reason, or more people willing to claim this is an issue.

Yeah, I know what it means, but your response just indicated total contempt for me and my reasoning.


Most places don't change their policies based on one person either, for the reasons I mentioned above. The ones who CAN do this either have lots of staff or lots of money, and we have neither.

Again, if one person makes a reasonable argument, you should. Not because of that one person, but because they have an actually good reason.


Until 50,000 isn't good enough. Then 75,000. Then 100,000. Then eventually, "Why have a limit at all?"

Well, I've never seen anyone hit the 100,000 character limit for posts, so I don't see the problem.

And, I understand the need for a limit, so I wouldn't argue that.


Arguments are not something meant to happen in blogs, so to try to minimize it from spiraling out of control, like it did last time, those limits are going to stay in force unless you can present some sort of non-argument situation, because that's the only one I ever see it potentially running against the limit, and my main goal is to cut down the walls of argument texts that any rule that you don't like inevitably turns into.

But, where else could that argument have happened? The limit for PMs is even lower.


I hardly think I'm "better" or "more important," but I do feel I should at least be given a little gratitude for keeping this place going. After all, at the end of the day, I have to try to keep a whole community happy, and that means juggling every user who posts to some degree.

Yes, you deserve gratitude, but not to be immune from having your decisions questioned.


You keep returning to this for some reason, and I can't fathom why. If anything, 10k is enough for most blogposts so if anything, it could still go LOWER, but lower isn't the argument. You're trying to convince me why it's supposed to be raised, Mike.

Only because you're the admin and, thus, make arbitrary defaults. Really, it should be you who should be convincing me (or, rather, yourself and the other admins, I guess) why it shouldn't be higher.


Because it was wrong to raise it just so we could argue. It means that we're not making good enough arguments. A good argument says what it needs to say in less words - not more. A person's arguments tend to start very broad, then narrow down to specific points. Once the points are known, the position is established, and from there the fat can be trimmed. An example of this is of you continually bringing up "Why do you have it set so low?" That's not the argument, Mike, the argument is "Why should it be raised?"

No, that simply does not hold. If you set an arbitrary limit on something, you should not then expect me to have to explain why that limit is wrong. You should explain why it is right.


Makes the table bigger. Makes it less efficiently compressed. Makes it take longer to back up. Annoys people because there's yet more long arguing posts, and now it's infesting the blog too.

Do those things apply in general, or only if a post actually went over 25k? Because the second would (as you pointed out) rarely happen, so I don't see it making a significant difference.

Basically, does it matter what the limit is, or just what the actual post sizes are? Because if the limit matters, you have a very good argument. If it's just the post size, then I don't really see it as a significant issue, because posts will rarely go over 25k.


This is why people are afraid of me getting the wiki, Mike, because they don't want to turn the discussion pages into ridiculously long pages of arguing with you.

Well, if they're reasonable, then it won't.


It sure is. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean I'm some character, who is preprogrammed into a role and simply acts it out. I have a psuedonym but I'm a real person, same as you, and so that means that I have my own thoughts, rules, mores, and what have you. Since I'm in a position of authority, that means that you automatically like me less (as you generally did not have problems with me on the old boards before those were pulled down) but it doesn't give you the right to call me a tyrant just because I don't agree with your views and so won't change the board rules, and when I give you my rationalization as to why, you just basically expect me to deal with it and do it anyway.

The difference is that, on a forum, if you don't like my post, you can just ignore it. That is not true in real life.

Also, whilst you being in authority has a lot to do with me disliking you, it is due to the way you handle that position, not the fact that you have that position itself. My opinion towards Elf and Altima proves that (OK, so I do get angry at them sometimes, but I would consider them to be "friends").

Further, I was not overly fond of you prior to you becoming an admin (I recall having a very long and angry argument with you about Sakura). The difference is that, when you don't have any power, I can ignore you if you annoy me. You gaining power makes that a lot harder, and gives you the ability to impose your views on me in a way you could not previously.

The thing is that I am generally tolerant of people with opposing viewpoints (although I might sometimes dislike them), but as soon as they attempt to impose their views on me (which being a moderator necessarily entails), I become far less so. Therefore, people I can get on just fine with as a normal member might come to annoy me as a mod or admin.


I'm not going to change how I am for you, just because you want me to - after all, I can't make you change like how I want you to either. This standoffish attitude you have isn't going to do anything. You need to, simply put, learn how to negotiate with people.

No, but the difference is that you can impose your way of thinking on me, whereas I cannot do the converse.


"My way or the highway" sorts of things don't work on me, or for me. And while I'm sure you'll say me not changing the limit is exactly that, I again point to the fact that nobody else has these problems, so for 99.99% of all of our forum users, the limits in place work.

But that is what you are doing here.


Neither do I - which is why I reset the limit to 25k instead of 10k. 25k chars should be enough to get most things across without turning the page into HOLY FUCK SCROLLING CHALLENGE, especially on mobile devices.

Most things, not all things.


As has been said before: Table size, readability concerns, mobile users, and nobody wants to scroll through a huge post of yours just to get to the next point of the discussion that they're interested in.

Well, table size is a reasonable argument. The rest are pretty dubious, though, particularly given that the value is higher for the forums.


It's not like I'm picking numbers out of a hat here. I'm trying to predict the content, and furthermore, you almost never post blog entries (unless you're mad at us it seems, because I've yet to see an entry on you that isn't that). I go by the typical users, not the extreme users, and so in that sense I come up with numbers that work for virtually everybody.

Again, this is the issue. Why should the numbers work for only virtually everybody, when they could easily work for absolutely everybody.


Raising limits should be a last-resort thing - not a first-resort. First-resort should be making your argument leaner and meaner, because that makes it better.

Sorry, but that's just untrue. Perhaps it is better to be more concise, but it should not be enforced in this way.

Lianru
June 11th, 2012, 08:45 PM
Mike? Darples already explained why he wants lower limits, I think he wants you to explain why you want higher limits other than "why not". That gives him a reason to consider it in the first place.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 08:47 PM
Mike? Darples already explained why he wants lower limits, I think he wants you to explain why you want higher limits other than "why not". That gives him a reason to consider it in the first place.

Well, I've already given my only reason, which is that people might want to post something over 25k characters. I don't see what other reasons could exist, really. If that's not enough, then it's not enough, I can't really do anything about that.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 08:58 PM
Hypotheticals don't get you stuff. If your only argument is "But what if someone needs more?", then you don't have an argument.
Plus, if someone does need more, he can raise the issue and it can get discussed accordingly. But not before.

lantzblades
June 11th, 2012, 09:04 PM
How long are your chapters, usually?

when I get serious 10,000 to 15,000 words. I usually keep the chapters to a fraction of that due to the readability of 10,000 words versus 1000. but still 3000 is pathetic for serious action or drama fiction. the same goes for blog stuff relating to those works (hey people have asked for extra stuff and the blog is the place to go to avoid spoiling stuff) 3000 words will not explain 30 odd years of history.


Hypotheticals

it's not hypothetical, i do need more space.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 09:10 PM
You know, when Xam posted his mega textwall chapter, we told'im to trim it down and split it into two chapters. Nobody wants to read preposterously long chapters.

Mike1984
June 11th, 2012, 09:13 PM
You know, when Xam posted his mega textwall chapter, we told'im to trim it down and split it into two chapters. Nobody wants to read preposterously long chapters.

Perhaps, but it should be down to the author. Further, sometimes it's not a "chapter", but an entire fic (e.g a one-shot).

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 09:14 PM
Long one shots can and should also be split into logical sub-units for readability.

Xamusel
June 11th, 2012, 09:17 PM
@Kyte: You mean that over 34k word chapter?

I didn't split it into different chapters, but I split the amount of words into four different posts due to the complaints, which I think made it better off at the time... don't know if that'll be different due to the upgrades.

Kyte
June 11th, 2012, 09:26 PM
Yeah, that chapter. I didn't really keep track of the end result, only that it needed to get cut 'cause it was way too textwally. Upgrade should've done nothing.

Xamusel
June 11th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Let's hope so...

DP? You have anything you'd like to add?

Dark Pulse
June 11th, 2012, 09:36 PM
Not really. I mean, I do think that chapters that huge should be kind of split off. Really, anything over 10,000 words is probably getting "a bit too long."

I know in my current work, I basically settled on 4,000 word chapters after awhile (but with 75 chapters overall plus an epilogue). In the future, I plan to have meatier chapters (more in the 8-10k word range) but as a result, less chapters in the actual work.

Really, the blog should be used to tease content, because as I said, people who are doing serious writing probably already have a forum thread for the fic at any rate. That's what I'd do, though of course, each author is different. You could still certainly tease a chapter well within those limits though, just not post the ENTIRE thing.

Xamusel
June 11th, 2012, 09:41 PM
...Ouch.

Well, I'm not gonna argue the point about that, in any case.

Cruor
June 12th, 2012, 01:02 PM
Mike? Darples already explained why he wants lower limits, I think he wants you to explain why you want higher limits other than "why not". That gives him a reason to consider it in the first place.

Technically, (I've been browsing through the argument) Darples said that it becomes a problem when backing up files. And then Mike replied that that would only be a problem that happens with the blog posts that are over the 25k character limit and that it shouldn't really extend the backup unless the limit was really reached. Ah fuck, I worded it badly, here's the posts.


Blogs take up space too just like posts do. Because they have a smaller limit, the table is smaller, which makes it quicker to process, which makes things move on to the next step of backups faster.

That, and nobody should need more than 25,000 chars in a blogpost. I've yet to see a legitimate post (i.e; something not us arguing) that goes over that limit, but if you'd like to point me to a few legitimate cases of it, that might change my mind. Emphasis on "might" as pointing out a few cases is not an automatic, guaranteed "You must change it now because I proved it."


Is that true?

Surely it's the size of the post that matters, not the theoretical limit. If all the posts are small, then

This is what the whole argument technically amounts to. Its just that Mike and Darples have been saying 'NO U' for the past few posts. Well, they have stopped the insults so yeah, they are prolly arguing for the sake of arguing lol.

Oh, and then there was Dark saying that he doesn't want to do a change based on one person because he doesn't want 10 people all coming up to him asking for their own changes. Which I find to be a valid reason for a leader/admin.

Note: this post isn't directed towards Dark and Mike. Its for the people who haven't read the argument and come into the thread and and not reading the huge walls and starts complaining.

Tobias
June 12th, 2012, 01:07 PM
I have just keeping an eh on this post a far better argument against any supposed tyranny of DP.

Also some possible post jujitsu by mike. I occasionally wonder if mike actually knows how polite, reasonable and paying he makes DP look when he makes the argument repeatedly spewing words like tyrant and/or nazi and doesn't get so much of a warning for it, but just doesn't care because it means he gets to take free shots without penalty. Basically playing us all.

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 01:10 PM
Oh, and then there was Dark saying that he doesn't want to do a change based on one person because he doesn't want 10 people all coming up to him asking for their own changes. Which I find to be a valid reason for a leader/admin.

No, not really.

Saying "I'm going to ignore people who ask me for things unless they have a sufficiently large petition" is a terrible way to handle administration. OK, if he has an actually valid argument against it or it took significant effort, then fine, but to just dismiss my opinion as irrelevant without thought just because I am only one person (when he is also only one person) is just outright rude, to be quite frank.


I have just keeping an eh on this post a far better argument against any supposed tyranny of DP.

Also some possible post jujitsu by mike. I occasionally wonder if mike actually knows how polite, reasonable and paying he makes DP look when he makes the argument repeatedly spewing words like tyrant and/or nazi and doesn't get so much of a warning for it, but just doesn't care because it means he gets to take free shots without penalty. Basically playing us all.

Or, in other words ,"waahh, we're getting criticism, how dare someone criticise the authorities!"

Sorry, but the fact that DP (and, more to the point, the rest of the mods) have enough basic decency to not punish people for criticising their total unwillingness to listen does not make him a wonderful person. That is the minimum basic requirement for not being a complete and utter asshole.

Nothing I have said here would get me a warning if it were aimed at a normal member, so why the hell should admins and mods get special treatment?

Tobias
June 12th, 2012, 01:26 PM
Because generally speaking tyrants don't try to act like decent human beings or allow themselves to be treated harshly even if such action would be tolerated if directed towards a different member.


Thats what makes them tyrants. You basically just defined DP as a fairly decent guy.

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 01:29 PM
Because generally speaking tyrants don't try to act like decent human beings or allow themselves to be treated harshly even if such action would be tolerated if directed towards a different member.

That's not necessarily true, it depends how you define "tyrant". Plus, I have not called him a tyrant, I called his system "tyranny by majority". Which, if you look it up, means exactly what I am saying it does. A system where the majority get their way and the minorities just get trampled over.

I do over-exaggerate, admittedly, but the fact that he lets me speak doesn't make him entirely ignoring me on principle any less shitty.


Thats what makes them tyrants. You basically just defined DP as a fairly decent guy.

No, I defined him as being not a total asshole. The two are not the same....

Tobias
June 12th, 2012, 01:32 PM
No, you called him a total asshole. You just did, and actually have been defining him as a pretty decent guy for a few days now.

Actions speak louder then words, no?

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 01:34 PM
No, you called him a total asshole. You just did, and actually have been defining him as a pretty decent guy for a few days now.

No, I didn't. And, no, I haven't.


Actions speak louder then words, no?

Yes, and his "actions" involve repeatedly ignoring me, so....

Lianru
June 12th, 2012, 04:27 PM
That's not necessarily true, it depends how you define "tyrant". Plus, I have not called him a tyrant

And, yes, I know you're just going to jump in with the same old, tired, "well, it's my forum" crap, but that just proves that you are a tyrant. Because only tyrants take the attitude that people should have to justify the freedoms they have, rather than the other way around.
.

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 04:39 PM
Well, OK, perhaps I did....

The basic point is correct, though, even if I'm being a little over the top with the language used.

Satehi
June 12th, 2012, 04:40 PM
Since this thread is now the 'complain about your personal troubles' thread, may I ask if it's possible to, as a guest, disable the banner (I don't want to gain a reputation at school as this weird guy who surfs a website with a scantily clad loli kthnxbai) as well as avatars and signatures?

Something like that would really help me with surfing BL at school.

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 04:42 PM
You can just change to the default background. Not sure about avatars and signatures, though....

NuitTombee
June 12th, 2012, 04:49 PM
Simplest way would be to not browse the site with the "scantily clad loli".

Satehi
June 12th, 2012, 04:51 PM
You can just change to the default background. Not sure about avatars and signatures, though....

I don't think you can do that as a guest.


Simplest way would be to not browse the site with the "scantily clad loli".




Nooooooo, what else am I supposed to do in my spare time at school

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 04:55 PM
I don't think you can do that as a guest.

I think you can. There's a box at the bottom, and I don't think it appears only for registered users.

NuitTombee
June 12th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Confirmed, you can change styles as a Guest.

Lianru
June 12th, 2012, 05:05 PM
Couldn't you just log in?

Mike1984
June 12th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Hmm, yeah, you have a point there....

Kyte
June 12th, 2012, 05:26 PM
Couldn't you just log in?

The point's to hide all that stuff as Guest, so that Sat can use the login system as a simple SFW filter.
(He's got a point. Like with Neir's assvatar. One thing's having generic animu avvies and another is having animu ass right there in 300x300)

Dark Pulse
June 12th, 2012, 06:05 PM
Since this thread is now the 'complain about your personal troubles' thread, may I ask if it's possible to, as a guest, disable the banner (I don't want to gain a reputation at school as this weird guy who surfs a website with a scantily clad loli kthnxbai) as well as avatars and signatures?

Something like that would really help me with surfing BL at school.Unfortunately, not unless you use something like NoScript/AdBlock to block the image. The image is part of the stylesheet, not a user-configurable setting per se.

That said, you could switch to the vBulletin default skin (which doesn't have that banner) or to Cat Hell, if you'd like.


Confirmed, you can change styles as a Guest.You can change them as a user, too. It's in your user options.

Lianru
June 12th, 2012, 06:31 PM
The point's to hide all that stuff as Guest, so that Sat can use the login system as a simple SFW filter.
(He's got a point. Like with Neir's assvatar. One thing's having generic animu avvies and another is having animu ass right there in 300x300)
Lol, I do the opposite of that.

^But default doesn't kill avatars and sigs, only logging in and changing settings can do that.

NuitTombee
June 12th, 2012, 07:08 PM
You can change them as a user, too. It's in your user options.
Oh I know. XD

I just didn't know it was possible as a Guest until I tried.

Counterguardian
June 12th, 2012, 08:50 PM
You can just turn on the "no images" option in your web browser.

No more banner and no more ass avatars.

Satehi
June 12th, 2012, 08:56 PM
Huh, that helps.

Thanks everyone ~

food
June 14th, 2012, 05:38 PM
Since this thread is now the 'complain about your personal troubles' thread, may I ask if it's possible to, as a guest, disable the banner (I don't want to gain a reputation at school as this weird guy who surfs a website with a scantily clad loli kthnxbai) as well as avatars and signatures?

Something like that would really help me with surfing BL at school.

You should not surf BL at school.

Do your school work.

Satehi
June 14th, 2012, 05:47 PM
But I'm already done my school work D:

Well, the stuff that I can do at school.

Dark Pulse
June 14th, 2012, 08:19 PM
You should not surf BL at school.

Do your school work.Yeah, what food said. We are, after all, a totally responsible site.

http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd436/Salience1/Caskoqipao.jpg

Five_X
June 14th, 2012, 08:47 PM
More buttwindows!

Tobias
June 14th, 2012, 08:48 PM
Yeah, what food said. We are, after all, a totally responsible site.

http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd436/Salience1/Caskoqipao.jpg


HuminaHuminaHumina

RadiantBeam
June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
Yeah, what food said. We are, after all, a totally responsible site.

Lies.

Dark Pulse
June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
Lies.Shh!

Counterguardian
June 14th, 2012, 09:35 PM
Yeah, what food said. We are, after all, a totally responsible site.

http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd436/Salience1/Caskoqipao.jpg

You have got to tell me where you find this very responsible stuff!

Tobias
June 14th, 2012, 09:41 PM
inorite? Im in love.

Dark Pulse
June 14th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Clearly some of you aren't in Casko's fanclub.

She waits...

http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd436/Salience1/1f03259819ad833b84637b6377cb2307.png

Mcjon01
June 15th, 2012, 04:08 AM
I browse Facebook on the computer while BL is pulled up on my phone, when I'm at school.

Five_X
June 15th, 2012, 12:38 PM
I browse Facebook on the computer while BL is pulled up on my phone, when I'm at school.

Edgy little punk.

food
June 15th, 2012, 04:03 PM
I browse Facebook on the computer while BL is pulled up on my phone, when I'm at school.

You are in Japan, where used underwear are sold in vending machines.

The Japanese probably think you are weaksauce.

You gotta blast uncensored Western porn at max volume to exert your dominance and declare your alpha status.

Spinach
June 15th, 2012, 05:37 PM
Someday, sometime, somewhere, an internet superhero will follow every bit of advice food ever gives, and he will be our messiah.